A few pics up on Flickr. Still recovering from travel, more soon. -m
Archive for July, 2006
Monday, July 31st, 2006
Thursday, July 20th, 2006
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006
Word on the street is that some of the new stuff in XForms 1.1 is fantastic. Also on my to-carefully-read list, the mobileOK Scheme. As always, any thoughts welcome here. -m
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006
Write up by Duncan Cragg. More and more momentum is building for this meme. -m
Sunday, July 16th, 2006
Hey readers, help me guide my scattered thought processes.
I’ve been thinking lately about microformats, which are typically characterized by inline annotation through existing class attributes in XHTML. You put the rel=”self” or whatever right into the document, on the element you’re talking about.
Another approach, that used by CSS itself, is to keep all the extra information bunched together in a different place. There’s all kinds of phrases, usually beginning with “separation of” to describe this pattern. And to do so requires a specific way to connect the external information, typcially called a binding. For CSS, it’s Selectors.
OK, so far so good. Except that it’s possible, and common in some cases, to have style attributes, taking CSS in the inline annotation direction. The lines are blurrier than they might seem at first.
So, Yahoo! has started publicly supporting microformats, which is great, because they are the ones generating the pages. What if you want to make a microformat out of 3rd party XHTML without touching it?
Here’s my questions. Feel free to comment below. I’m travelling, but I’ll try to moderate asap.
- In the specific case of CSS, how do you decide inline vs. binding?
- Are any microformat efforts currently looking at a binding approach vs. inline annotation? Which ones?
- What general principles should readers keep in mind for this discussion?
Thursday, July 13th, 2006
According to the authoratative site. Looks like the virtualization markup is getting interesting. -m
Monday, July 10th, 2006
A little bit back, Cringely had a brilliant column about billable events and the last mile. Everything the telcos (and others) do these days is primarily aimed at creating billable events. This includes the net neutrality debates.
In fact, at&t is so skilled at revenuing, they can generate billable events out of nothing at all. Here’s a short quote from a recent phone bill:
The FUSF pass through fee charged to some customers has been reduced and credit may be due. Due to the large volume, any applicable credits generated in 2005 or 2006 may appear on a future bill. The average one-time credit will be less than $1.50.
No problem manufacturing extra charges in “large volume” since at least last year, but when it comes to refunds (and very partial refunds from the look of it), it sure takes a long time.
Speaking of long times, another thing the telcos aren’t very quick about is transferring service. Took them 11 days to establish service at my new address, with a $37 billable event to boot. But I’m back online now. If you’ve sent email in the last 2 weeks and haven’t seen a response, it might be a good idea to resend. -m
Thursday, July 6th, 2006
Yeah, help still wanted. I’m looking for a markup and standards guru to work with me on a cool Mobile project. Can you list five different types of CSS selector off the top of your head? Can you map all five to the equivalent XPath? Can you spot semantic markup by reflex? Do you daydream about microformats or scribble down BNF during idle moments? Do you obsessively check the TR page at the W3C?
If you answered YES to the above questions, send me your CV. Include “Yahoo!” somewhere in the subject line. -m