[snip]Neredbojias said:Bollocks back. The constraint of the timeframe you mention is
artificially established and exists only in the reality of our
fantasies.
...only as we approach the speed of light (in theory).
For all *practical* purposes, time, and what it is physically
possible to do *within* that time is finite, and therefore a
constraint.
One's own lifespan is a time constraint and is absolute, if
imprecise. How one chooses to use up that resource (lifespan) per
problem, defines time constraints for that problem.
"Roy A. said:Isn't Quantum physics/theories more like a thesis than a theory?
No. It is an established part of science.
Can
we do any experiment or gartering data to prove that it is true?
By and large, very little of anything big and significant be proved true
by gathering data or doing *an* experiment.
And
can anyone make sense of it without mathematic explanations? To me
it's plain nonsense.
Fair enough. The point of the context which you lifted my remarks from
was that it might be the way of the future for some other sciences
beside fundamental physics. To leap forward and baffle everyone in its
successful wake.
I agree that at some point an imaginative grasp, a way of interpretation
that feels satisfying to humans would be more than nice and I believe it
will come when we accept new models of thinking that would look strange
*now* to us with our mechanical pictures. We will get to accept as
natural many things other than how billiard balls work.
which is missing the type attribute that was required even in HTML 4.01,
and despite the XHTML attributes in the <html> tag, they have unclosed
<input> and <img> tags. So can you please stop telling us that these
companies are implementing HTML 5 on their websites when they aren't
implementing ANY one version of HTML but have a mix of constructions
from a variety of versions?
Ganesh said:I did not tell anything. I was only providing information about the
results I was getting. What they are doing is only known to them. So
far the websites are getting rendered on common browsers without
getting any errors no body is going to be bothered as well.
I did not tell anything.
I was only providing information about the
results I was getting.
What they are doing is only known to them.
So
far the websites are getting rendered on common browsers without
getting any errors no body is going to be bothered as well.
Your original question was whether it's a good idea to switch over to
HTML 5. No, it isn't, no purpose is served by it, especially since it
hasn't been finally defined yet. The fact that some functioning websites
are an absolute mess in regards to the markup they are using isn't
exactly a justification or motivation to do the same.
Roy said:Google and Apple might "misspell" some words, but they both carefully
make sure that the elements is structured in the same way in the DOM
(Document Object Model).
The same way as what?
In the same way from browser to browser.
All that means is that their garbage is well formed. That's hardly anRoy said:If you validate the code for those sites you're getting error like: no
attributes named that, no elements named that; but not errors like:
missing end tag or any errors concerning the structure of the DOM. In
most cases, anyway.
Your original question was whether it's a good idea to switch over to
HTML 5. No, it isn't, no purpose is served by it, especially since it
hasn't been finally defined yet. The fact that some functioning websites
are an absolute mess in regards to the markup they are using isn't
exactly a justification or motivation to do the same.
Lots of websites misspell words. Can people still read them? Yes. Is
that either a justification or a motivation to duplicate those
misspellings? No.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.