Posted by SpaceGirl on 09/25/07 17:30

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> So you're asking the user to change the configuration of their browser
>> for just your site?
>
> No, Sparkles, I'm asking them to change the configuration of their
> browser for the function they want...I mean either you want stuff
> opened in tabs or you don't. It doesn't make any sense to sit there
> hittin an extra button every time you click a link...unless you're an
> idiot.

But relying on a user to alter the default configuration of a product
just to support something that only takes up a small part of the WWW? I
understand your point - but you cannot expect users to modify their
browsers to work around a functionality issue of Flash. Just because
they CAN do it doesn't mean they will.

I like the choice, Flash removes that choice.

> It figures though, I mean dribblers like yourself whine on end about
> the wondrous achievement of fuckin tabs, whining and snitting about
> IE6 every chance you get because it doesn't have tabs...and then you
> start fuckin whining about having to use the tabs all the time.

?

> There's just no pleasing snits and that truly is the bottom line.
> Snits are snits, they're unhappy, they're unpleasant and all they
> really like doing is bitching. If things are one way, they want 'em
> the other. If things are the other way, they want 'em back the way
> they were.
>
>> What if they want it some other way for all
>> non-Flash sites? You've taken the option away from them if they are
>> "forced" to check that box.
>
> You do realize that ctrl+click will work in reverse when that box is
> checked, right? Won't work in reverse with Flash stuff, but it will
> with everything else, so you're not really losing any
> "functionality"...and by that I mean snitting, because honestly, I
> don't think I've heard a more absurd complaint since that idiot woman
> outside of Wal*Mart started bitching to me about the fuckin bench
> being too close to the bike rack (in her opinion).

It may not be a big deal to you and I, but to folks who are used to
working a particular way?


>> A function that I use (content being highlighted) is no longer
>> available. How many ways can you describe "functionality lost". LOL.
>
> The function is only "lost" if they don't bother to program it in.



> Honestly Spacey, if you think something so utterly basic as a Flash
> based HTML parser would anything more than child's play you're not
> even half the Flash developer I imagined you as.

You do realise how much code you're talking about? Even the smallest of
opensource HTML parsers runs into tens of thousands of lines of code.

> Ooo...that's another great project though...a Flash based HTML
> browser. I'm likin that idea.

I think if it were realistic, Adobe would have already done it. Instead
they brought in WebKit and added it to AIR. It's much larger than Flash,
partly because you have several Mb of code inside it to render HTML/CSS.

>> Explain to me how to achieve the effect I demonstrated would be lost, in
>> Flash. Given that Flash cannot re-render a web page...
>
> Fuckin DUH! Just because it can't do it by default doesn't mean you
> can't code yer own Flash based HTML rendering engine. Just have it
> import the HTML as plain text and then have it split the text apart
> based on the tags and rebuilt as Flash constructs. As I said, just
> like the test XML entry on my forum prototype:

You could, of course, write a full HTML parser in Flash. But the effort
would be HUGE.

Think of the nightmare of parsing DIV tags, floats, borders, in-line
styles, multiple external CSS.... brrr.

Anyway I did hear today there IS a project out there trying to do just this!

> Only a bit more advanced to handle more complex tags.

Just a bit :)

>> Now if we were
>> talking about AIR, it would be a different story as AIR can render full
>> HTML. So I could pull up someones web page, with the bits of text I'm
>> searching for highlighted, and their web page still be correctly
>> displayed. Not possible in Flash itself.
>
> Not possible for YOU maybe. Don't confuse YOUR deficiency with a
> deficiency of the language. Actionscript is capable of far more than
> you can even begin to try and imagine.

Hmm. I'm not AS3 expert :) I'm learning as I'm going!

>> Lost the function to right-click and save the link, or to search on the
>> word I have selected, or to save the image...
>
> All of which is easily recreated in Flash.

There's no right click in Flash. No amount of coding inside AS is going
to get around the fact that the player does not support that event :)
You have to rely on external code (JS), and hope that the browser
handles events correctly so that they can be passed to Flash (several
browsers do not do this).

>> Flash only supports about 10 CSS attributes... out of many hundreds. So
>> you'd have to write your own CSS parser from scratch... not to mention
>> and HTML parser to go along with it. Possible, but heck of an overhead.
>> You'd sacrifice a great deal of speed.
>
> Not really considering that once you made it you would be able to
> reuse it for pretty much any and all future sites...not to mention you
> could sell usage and make a shit load of money.

And nobody has done this because...? Think about it.

>> So, now we have to write our own web browser inside Flash, along with
>> CSS parsing, before we can even tackle the business of matching Google
>> Searches Cache view.
>
> Oh I'm sorry, is that too complicated for you? LOL, I thought you
> were good, Spacey, not some dribbling flunkie. If you're on my level
> you know damn well that wouldn't take more than a week or two of
> concentrated effort to complete. And again, you'd be able to reuse it
> on any and all future sites.
>
>> Tell me how Flash can also support any JS that is
>> running on that page? It can't So you have to write your own JS engine
>> too. What if the page has video? You have to write your own video
>> engine... LOL. Flash cannot re-render external pages with all the content :)
>
> Um, neither can Google's cache search, Sparkles

It manages a pretty good job of it.

>> In other words... not going to happen. Means we cannot match the
>> functionality of Googles Cache view.
>
> Sure we can, Google's cache view is practically limited to only the
> plain text of an old site. Very rarely is much else still left

True, but as this covers almost all web pages, this is a somewhat moot
point.

> intact, maybe some pictures. The point of Google's cache search is
> the TEXT of the site, not a cache of the site itself you bumbling
> idiot. I swear, I'm really starting to wonder if you've ever even
> used Google's cache search before.

Yes it indexes the text. It highlights the text. It displays the
highlighted text in a fairly accurate re-rendering of the site the
results are on, with the good cache header included at the top.

Extremely hard to do in Flash, hard enough to probably not be
realistically possible.

>>>> 3) Mouse wheel only works in Windows, it's not supported in the other
>>>> players (so much for cross browser)
>
>>> http://blog.pixelbreaker.com/flash/swfmacmousewheel/
>>>
>>> DUH!
>
>> Requires JavaScript to work, which is reliant on the client browser
>> supplying it. So much for Flash being cross platform...?
>
> That's "javascript", do note the lack of capitals. And javascript

Actually it IS JavaScript.. as per ECMA (the standards behind JS), not
to mention pretty much every official reference, and all of the
documentation. It's only lower case when quoting as a MIME
("text/javascript"). Try googling before you open your mouth :D

> works on all major browsers on all major operating systems and is
> enabled on all of them by default, so I don't know what the fuck yer
> babbling about.

Yes, but not identically on all browsers, so your point is irrelevant.
It's more to do with the way the Flash object works inside a browser,
rather than JavaScript in particular; JS passing things to Flash doesn't
work quite the same on all browser so you have to watch your step.

>>> ...although really, who would waste the fuckin bother for, what, 5% of
>>> Mac lusers? LOL
>
>> 10%, of a market that is growing.
>
> Yeah, keep dreamin, Sunshine. I've been hearing that 'ol line for
> fuckin DECADES now. You doorknob zealots really do need to learn to
> give it a fuckin rest already. I mean, yer revolution didn't happen,
> it just didn't. It didn't happen, it's not going to happen and quit
> fuckin jackin yerself off to the fantasy until it comes true (which
> will be never).

:D different argument! But Apple's share is growing at a slow but steady
pace as people see the light :P

>> Mostly home users, and home users with
>> money, who are more likely to buy products online (rather than users
>> with cheap PCs, lower tech, less money to spend or they would have got a
>> better computer... horrible generalization I know :P)
>
> Pretty much as backwards as it gets really. The only thing Macs are
> good for is Mac Trendies...Gavin wannabes, suckin down lattes, dreamin
> about bigger logos and typin along on their lil prefab, cookie cutter
> web blogs about how "hip" and "mainstream" they think are...totally
> outside the box, totally non-conformist. *nods*

Personally I don't care what computers folks use, unless I get a client
moaning at me because Windows has choked again. I'm not really
interested. We use Macs because they are very fast, very reliable, and
easy to use. The rest is meaningless.

> Most home users buy their computers at Staples and Wal*Mart. They're
> cheap, they're easy and best of all they're disposable. If something

Yep. Most people don't need anything more than that. Plus I'm all for
personal choice. Most folks know someone who can fix a Windows machine
if/when it pops, so it's not THAT much of an issue the reliability
things. Everyone should have a pet geek :)

> goes wrong with it in a few years, hey, just go get another. To your
> average computer user a Mac is more of a burden than anything and
> nearly every new, first time, Mac buyer out there will wind up buying
> a PC as their second system once they learn that the Mac hype isn't
> all it's cracked up to be. The number of FORMER Mac users is just
> fuckin staggering. The number of FORMER PC users is...practically
> nonexistent. The ONLY people who stick with Macs are Mac Zealots.

Having fun there in your dream world? :D

>> That's Flash 8 honey. As far as I know, right click has been disabled in
>> Flash 9, all versions.
>
> First I've heard that.

That'll be because you have no clue what you are talking about, no
experience, and no skill. Same as usual then :D ... and then you kindly
go on to prove my point:

> Not that it matters. You do realize you're
> not actually restricted to any particular version of Flash when
> exporting, right?

AS3 only works in Flash 9!

>>>> 5) Flash won't work on my cell phone - it only supports Flash Lite,
>>>> but is very basic. Flash is also very very slow on my phone. Google is
>>>> lightening fast.
>>> I never said the thing would be for your cell phone, or for your
>
>> Google Search works on my phone. Flash doesn't. That's another loss of
>> functionality (not to mention another blow for cross-platform support).
>
> Google Search for you phone isn't even the same fucking site for your
> computer you idiot fuck!
>
> http://www.google.mobi

Regular google.com works on my phone "you idiot fuck". That was the
whole point :)

> You're essentially trying to argue apples and oranges. Google, the
> Google you use to search on your computer is NOT COMPATIBLE with yer
> cell phone you fuckin retard.

Yes it is, unless I imagine using it! :) Won't your Flash version be?

>>> fuckin toaster or for your gawd damn shitting vibrator or whatever the
>>> fuck else they're trying franken-bitch into a computer these days.
>>> Not that it matters, I'm more than confident that within the next five
>>> years they'll have the full version of Flash for cell phones, toasters
>>> and even yer lil vibrator, Honey Bunny.
>
>> Absolutely, we're not far off that at all. But for now all we have is
>> Flash Lite, which is pretty limited in functionality.
>
> As is the current Google mobile search engine.
>
>>> And trying to bitch that you can't use
>>> Flash on your cell phone makes about as much sense as bitching that
>>> you can't use Flash on your barbeque. Let me know when they manage to
>
>> That wasn't the point. I don't expect Flash to work on my phone. My
>> phone is crap! But even a crap phone can display regular HTML pages, so
>> google works just fine as it is.
>
> No, you idiot fuck, your crap ass cell phone CANNOT DISPLAY REGULAR
> HTML PAGES. It can display a bastardized, limited, botched together,
> hobble of HTML that simply won't work on any fuckin site that wasn't
> specifically designed for cell phones and 10 times out of 10 on a
> .mobi domain.

My phone renders XHTML perfectly fine thanks, although the browser is
horribly sluggish and chokes on a lot of CSS... and has no JS. It's an
old phone though.

>
> And I'm just pointing out why you're an idiot.

You've not actually provided a legitimate reply to anything yet. Insults
are a lot easier for a small brain I suppose.

>>> Is that a challenge? He, he, he...
>
>> Sure! Why not? I don't think it can be done at all, but as usual with
>> these things I'm very open minded. I really think Flash is The
>> technology right now, which is why I work with it so much. Anything that
>> proves it can replace HTML *and* be better at the task is a Good Thing
>> as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> If you crack the google cache trick, I'd be intrigued. I'm pretty
>> confident that until Flash gets a full HTML render, it's not possible
>> though.
>
> Yes, because it'll be *SO* complicated to build a parse engine that
> can extract all the text out of an HTML page. *rolls eyes*

Extracting the text is relatively easy. Recreating the page so that it
is almost identical, with text highlighted... if it's that easy why have
you not done it yet to prove me wrong?

>> I'd rather have the choice of when it happens. If I want a new tab, I
>> middle click a link and the link opens in a new tab.
>
> Middle click, huh? So now you're claiming that all computer mice have
> a middle button, eh? Uh oh, did I spot some hypocrisy in your snit

Nope. But those that do aren't supported in Flash.

> fit? I think that I did. The same worthless, idiot "arguments" you
> had about the option setting can just as easily be applied to your
> ASSumption that every person on the planet has a middle mouse button.

I'm not assuming that at all. I use a laptop a lot of the time. It
doesn't even have a mouse, let alone middle clicking or a scrollwheel!
When I am on a computer with a scrollwheel, I like to use it. I want to
be able to use that in Flash.

>> If I want it in a
>> new window I shift+click which opens a brand new window. if I'm casually
>> browsing I just click and it replaces the current window.
>
> Why wouldn't you just do it all in tabs?

Sometimes I do, mostly I don't. I like the choice. Don't you? I'm sure
you'd find it very irritating if you're told you MUST use something in a
particular way, when it clearly works perfectly another way too. Don't
take choice away from your users, they won't love you.

>> What you are suggesting is I loose all that functionality
>
> No, see stupid, YOUR the one whose losing functionality. The GAINED
> functionality, the "UPGRADE" from IE6 was TABS. The whole basis of

I don't use IE6... not sure where all these UE6-centric arguments of
yours are coming from. I use Safari on my Macs (doesn't have tabbing at
all) and FireFox (which does) and IE7 on the PC (which does). The
default setup for IE, Opera and Fx is to open a link in the same tab...

> the argument was that tabs are superior in every way to new windows.

Agreed.

> So really, all your middle click is doing (or lack of middle click
> depending on how you have it setup) is LOSING the functionality gained
> through tabs.

Middle click opens a link in a tab. Otherwise, regular click opens in
current window. I don't see what I'm loosing there?

> Essentially, what you're complaining about is the
> inability to lose functionality...which makes no fuckin sense at all
> unless yer just some dumb fuckin snit bitch lookin to bellyache about
> shit.

Umm... are you okay over there?

> Um, so is HTML. HTML isn't a programming language, it's a MARKUP
> language.

No, HTML contains some presentation & lots of layout stuff as well.
There are no <strong> or <font> or <table> tags, or any equivalent in
XML (although, you could make them! :D)

>
>> We have HTML admin pages (forms) that post all the content to the
>> database. Flash request the data from the database and gets and XML
>> stream in return... which is nice and easy for Flash to digest.
>>
>> You really expect our writers and content providers to write XML!?
>> You're crazier than I thought :)
>
> No, I expect a Flash front end form to send the data to a PHP script
> which will then convert it into an XML document and save it to the
> server.

You... save XML data into your database!? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Alright we'll pick this discussion up when you've got to the next level
of understanding in XML. This is like talking to an infant!! :D


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

[Back to original message]