target tag

[dorayme]

Where did you get that strange idea?

People do get strange ideas about facts, they seem to just come out of
thin air!

Frankly, I don't believe in facts. It seems enough, on simplicity
grounds, to believe in the truth of certain types of sentences. And, as
the context warrants, to put such sentences in various useful classes.

Still, there are various popular games. In some, the facts are whatever
the players agree can be believed in on the basis of quick observation
using natural sense organs (perhaps JK likes this game). In other games,
the facts are whatever all the players agree are true sentences, the
game being to settle disputes about deductions and inductions from this
base.

If I were to believe in facts, I would be happy to say that there are
some we know, some we don't know, some that are simple and naturally
impossible to doubt, some complex but impossible to doubt on refection
and education and study.

Notice that the term "directly observable" that JK uses is a very
slippery notion indeed. I would say it is a fact that the earth is sort
of like a ball (rather than a flat disc). This fact was not directly
observable but is now. It is altogether too confusing to think it was
not a fact once but is now! The fact is (ahem...) that the earth is and
was a ball but how we come to know it or justify our belief in it has
changed.

 

[dorayme]

It's a special 1,700 page volume of a Greek encyclopedia published once
some 60 years ago, which I frequently used during my school years. As
far as I know, only the 11 RARs are available online so far. The idea of
making them a PDF is an interesting one to consider in the future.
Making a framed webpage was the first obvious solution in order to make
the RARs usable first of all for myself, and sharing the possibility
with some friends and the wider www public secondarily.

A RAR, I take it, is a compressed file? So what happens when you
uncompress one of the 11? What do you then get exactly? Not a PDF? A set
of pictures of the pages with no clickable index?

So what exactly are you linking to in your left navigation column? If
the book is somehow only in external sites in some compressed form, how
are you targeting individual pages? Or is it the case that you have
uncompressed one of these RAR files and have the 1700 jpgs on your
server?

 

[freemont]

This is not true.

That is a fact.

 

[dorayme]

In many popular games, facts are also expected to be contingent.

In maths classes, the teacher often plays a popular game where the
students are expected to know a number of non-contingent facts, like
their times tables! Do kids these days learn such facts or has it all
gone terribly postmodernist?

 

[Eustace]

You don't much about copyright, do you?

No, but I did not put the RARs up there, I just found them. Somebody
else did. Besides I don't even guide the visitors directly to the RARs,
I guide them to somebody's blog that contains the links to the RARs.

I don't think I need a copyright to write a webpage to access the JPGs
of those RARs even if they are copyrighted, or do I need one?

emf

 

[Eustace]

There's no challenge. It's a trivial matter of elementary logic.


The only HTML standard is ISO 15445, and hardly anyone uses (no wonder).


You can't know what they will be.


Why would that be of any value as such?


Then you are very wrong. You seem to believe the crap written about
conformance to "standards" (or even mere compliance to a DTD!) being a
guarantee of interoperability. That's dangerous crap, not just nonsense.


Actually, you don't.

But why would HTML 4.01 Transitional be any less standard than HTML 4.01
Strict? They are defined in the very same W3C recommendation.


I was afraid you were going to do that. All you have really achieved is
that your pages (in addition to have some extra complexity for no good
reason) fail to work at all when client-side scripting is disabled or
filtered out.

Oh boy... Are you sure that you do not belong to the psychological type
that won't accept that he/she is wrong unless a sharp knife is being
pressed against his/her throat? Just to make sure

emf

 

[Eustace]

...
Okay I will end the dance and answer the the question you are not
*exactly* asking but what you *mean* to ask. Target attributes that are
for use with frameset and iframes which are not part of 4.01 strict. You
do not want a JavaScript solution because JavaScript is optional, so if
you page depends on JavaScript, no JavaScript then no page. What you do
what is in place of frames is some type of server-size includes to
assemble your website in maintainable bits...

The webpage already required JavaScript because it uses
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/jslibs/listCollapse.js, in this case for
practical reasons an absolutely necessary nice little script.

emf

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

No, but I did not put the RARs up there, I just found them. Somebody
else did. Besides I don't even guide the visitors directly to the
RARs, I guide them to somebody's blog that contains the links to the
RARs.

Such a reference would be acceptable, as you are not directly displaying
the copyrighted works of others.

I don't think I need a copyright to write a webpage to access the
JPGs of those RARs even if they are copyrighted, or do I need one?

If you are displaying directly on your site, either by copying it to
your server or by direct linking to the work (it appears as if it's in
your page), yes, you need permission of the author, or current owner of
the work. Otherwise, you are abusing the copyright.

If you were to display some work that I wrote 50-60 years ago, I would
not be pleased...

 

[dorayme]

They just use the calculators on their Ipods these days. But even if
they did learn them, it doesn't mean they're facts.

No, it does not mean this, but they could be facts in fact. Analogy:

The majority of climate scientists' believing in human induced climate
change does not mean they are right, but they could be in fact.

In the old days kids sometimes had to learn how to recite poetry as well
as tables, but that wasn't facts.

Indeed, it is no sufficient condition of memorising something that it be
a fact. I hope you are not going all radical and believing that times
table information are not facts. The poor word "facts" would not like it
at all. I have a special cage where where I keep various words to
observe them when various questions come up. Last night I interned
"fact" and I can tell you that when I said to it "You capable of a bit
of non-contingency?", it smiled and said "Sure, and more than just a
bit, I can even accommodate the most trivial and banal"

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The webpage already required JavaScript because it uses
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/jslibs/listCollapse.js, in this case for
practical reasons an absolutely necessary nice little script.

Sure why not, bad from the start...A you sure required, or just required
to have the extra collapsing list? When JavaScript is not available if
the list just fully expanded then it is okay, but if the list is not
visible then that is very bad design decision.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

True, a common bad practice...mayeb I should have said *indented* use?

s/indented/intended/

 

[Eustace]

Sure why not, bad from the start...A you sure required, or just required
to have the extra collapsing list? When JavaScript is not available if
the list just fully expanded then it is okay, but if the list is not
visible then that is very bad design decision.

The page is still under construction, but here it is:

https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/he/hliosD.html

Some of the lists are far too long, so I have been breaking then down to
smaller lists.

The listCollapse.js made the lists much better navigable. Still some
lists were far too large (#3 was over 500 pages) so I have started
breaking them down.

Eventually I may decide to add a non-JavaScript version, but if I do
certainly I won't recommend it.

emf

 

[Eustace]

Such a reference would be acceptable, as you are not directly displaying
the copyrighted works of others.


If you are displaying directly on your site, either by copying it to
your server or by direct linking to the work (it appears as if it's in
your page), yes, you need permission of the author, or current owner of
the work. Otherwise, you are abusing the copyright.

As I said, I only provide a link to a blog referring to the work, where
some poster has added the links to the RARs. One has to download the
RARs from rapidshare.com (which, I just realized, now requires one to
buy a membership or try again later), unpack them, move the JPGs to a
folder, and then download the additional files I indicate in my website.

If you were to display some work that I wrote 50-60 years ago, I would
not be pleased...

If some work that you wrote 50-60 years ago is still of interest or of
use to some people, but is out-of-print and hard to find, it would be
nice if you would provide some legal way for people to have access to it
other than try to locate it in some library, unless of course you intend
to reprint it. Libraries can only offer a fraction of the service of
what the web nowadays does.

emf

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

As I said, I only provide a link to a blog referring to the work,
where some poster has added the links to the RARs. One has to
download the RARs from rapidshare.com (which, I just realized, now
requires one to buy a membership or try again later), unpack them,
move the JPGs to a folder, and then download the additional files I
indicate in my website.

Are these "additional files" a part of the original 60-year-old
document? If they are, you're violating copyright. If they are not,
you're not. You keep slipping in tiny new bits of information, it seems.

If some work that you wrote 50-60 years ago is still of interest or
of use to some people, but is out-of-print and hard to find, it would
be nice if you would provide some legal way for people to have access
to it other than try to locate it in some library, unless of course
you intend to reprint it. Libraries can only offer a fraction of the
service of what the web nowadays does.

What if what I wrote 50 years ago was a highly-successful million-copy
selling novel? What if I was Stephen King and this novel was my first?
If you published more than a fair-use paragraph or two, you have
violated copyright law.

If I wanted to publish my "interesting old work" on the Web, I would do
so, marking it as "Copyright 1960" or whatever. If you then posted it
elsewhere, you have violated copyright law.

 

[Eustace]

Are these "additional files" a part of the original 60-year-old
document? If they are, you're violating copyright. If they are not,
you're not. You keep slipping in tiny new bits of information, it seems.

No they are not. https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/he/hlios.html

What if what I wrote 50 years ago was a highly-successful million-copy
selling novel?

Then it would not be out-of-print.

What if I was Stephen King and this novel was my first?

Either it wouldn't be out of print, or it would be scheduled to be
reprinted, or, if I was Stephen King I wouldn't worry too much. I would
probably arrange for a legal e-edition of the novel.

If you published more than a fair-use paragraph or two, you have
violated copyright law.

If I wanted to publish my "interesting old work" on the Web, I would do
so, marking it as "Copyright 1960" or whatever. If you then posted it
elsewhere, you have violated copyright law.

N/A.

emf

 

[dorayme]

What if I was Stephen King and this novel was my first?

You would be a rich third rate writer of third rate novels...

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

No they are not. https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/he/hlios.html

Hard to decide what's going on. All the left frame items produce:
Error: 404 NOT FOUND -- at least a dozen or so I checked.

Then it would not be out-of-print.

Of course it could be out of print. Printed in 1960, sold out. Gone from
stores. Might exist in libraries. Can't be purchased except maybe in
used book stores.

I'm trying to find an analogy to fit your questions.

Either it wouldn't be out of print, or it would be scheduled to be
reprinted, or, if I was Stephen King I wouldn't worry too much. I
would probably arrange for a legal e-edition of the novel.

It was just an example...

N/A.

N/A? To what?

 

[Eustace]

Hard to decide what's going on. All the left frame items produce:
Error: 404 NOT FOUND -- at least a dozen or so I checked.

Right. As I wrote in another message, the website provides directions on
where and how to download the RARs in your computer, unzip them,
download the webpage and the js page in your computer, and then open the
webpage to view the JPGs.

emf

 

[Eustace]

They're RAR archives of images? In that case, IMHO the easiest way to
browse them would be to simply change the extension to .cbr:

The RARs contain 52 folders which contain the 1700 JPGs.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Book_Archive_file>

<http://comical.sourceforge.net>

When you have an HTML hammer in your hand, it's easy to forget that
not everything is a nail...

sherm--

Do you think Comical will be able to read them?

emf

 

[Eustace]

A RAR, I take it, is a compressed file? So what happens when you
uncompress one of the 11? What do you then get exactly? Not a PDF? A set
of pictures of the pages with no clickable index?

Not a PDF. Folders containing JPGs. No a clickable index.

So what exactly are you linking to in your left navigation column? If
the book is somehow only in external sites in some compressed form, how
are you targeting individual pages? Or is it the case that you have
uncompressed one of these RAR files and have the 1700 jpgs on your
server?

I have uncompressed all the RARs and have the JPGs in my computer. the
navigation column is linked to these JPGs. I do not intend to put them
on the server. The visitors can download 2 html files and a js file and
do the same.

emf