| From | Subject | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
Comment on your video: John Lydon v. Judge Judy (COMPLETE) | 05/13/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Rolling Stones Sonny Barger Hells Angel Drugs Altamont | 05/13/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Kutti pi (Goat Fetus) | 05/04/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Synanon Art with Pepper and Connie Chung | 04/13/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Anton LaVey (Satan Claus) Police Photographer Spreads C ... | 03/18/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Sonny Hells Angels Barger on Rolling Stones, misogynie, ... | 03/17/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Rolling Stones Hells Angels Discovered
 | 03/13/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Sylvie Vartan Bye bye Leroy Brown | 03/10/12 | ||
Comment on your video: 10050 Cieolo Drive Manson-Tate Murder Tour + John Wayne ... | 01/28/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Barry Manilow's Mandy (Czech) KAREL GOTT | 01/28/12 | ||
Comment on your video: John Lennon est mort (John Lennon Dead) | 01/14/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Keith Richards Snorts Father (Full Interview) | 01/01/12 | ||
Comment on your video: Guitar Day~Speedy West Alvino Rey Nokie Edwards | 12/02/11 | ||
Comment on your video: Kinski Paganini | 11/21/11 | ||
Comment on your video: Sexy Legs, Knees, et Things! Francais (Video Deux) | 11/18/11 | ||
Comment on your video: .Shara Lin hiked-up yellow dress prodigy | 11/18/11 | ||
Comment on your video: Guitar Day~Speedy West Alvino Rey Nokie Edwards | 06/17/11 | ||
Comment on your video: 10050 Cieolo Drive Manson-Tate Murder Tour + John Wayne ... | 06/10/11 | ||
Comment on your video: Anita Ekberg Giantess Boccaccio 70 | 06/06/11 | ||
Comment on your video: Rolling Stones (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction Opera | 05/27/11 |
Showing posts with label COMMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COMMENT. Show all posts
May 13, 2012
I get YouTube comments
| From | Subject | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
Comment on your video: Rolling Stones Hells Angels Discovered
| 03/13/12 |
March 2, 2012
Wes Montgomery John Coltrane Thelonious Monk ~ Round Midnight 102,861 Views
March 1, 2012
“We’re starting to do some things differently”
Mountain Lion
Thursday, 16 February 2012
“We’re starting to do some things differently,” Phil Schiller said to me.
We were sitting in a comfortable hotel suite in Manhattan just over a week ago. I’d been summoned a few days earlier by Apple PR with the offer of a private “product briefing”. I had no idea heading into the meeting what it was about. I had no idea how it would be conducted. This was new territory for me, and I think, for Apple.
I knew it wasn’t about the iPad 3 — that would get a full-force press event in California. Perhaps new retina display MacBooks, I thought. But that was just a wild guess, and it was wrong. It was about Mac OS X — or, as Apple now calls it almost everywhere, OS X. The meeting was structured and conducted very much like an Apple product announcement event. But instead of an auditorium with a stage and theater seating, it was simply with a couch, a chair, an iMac, and an Apple TV hooked up to a Sony HDTV. And instead of a room full of writers, journalists, and analysts, it was just me, Schiller, and two others from Apple — Brian Croll from product marketing and Bill Evans from PR. (From the outside, at least in my own experience, Apple’s product marketing and PR people are so well-coordinated that it’s hard to discern the difference between the two.)
Handshakes, a few pleasantries, good hot coffee, and then, well, then I got an Apple press event for one. Keynote slides that would have looked perfect had they been projected on stage at Moscone West or the Yerba Buena Center, but instead were shown on a big iMac on a coffee table in front of us. A presentation that started with the day’s focus (“We wanted you here today to talk about OS X”) and a review of the Mac’s success over the past few years (5.2 million Macs sold last quarter; 23 (soon to be 24) consecutive quarters of sales growth exceeding the overall PC industry; tremendous uptake among Mac users of the Mac App Store and the rapid adoption of Lion).
And then the reveal: Mac OS X — sorry, OS X — is going on an iOS-esque one-major-update-per-year development schedule. This year’s update is scheduled for release in the summer, and is ready now for a developer preview release. Its name is Mountain Lion.1
There are many new features, I’m told, but today they’re going to focus on telling me about ten of them. This is just like an Apple event, I keep thinking. Just like with Lion, Mountain Lion is evolving in the direction of the iPad. But, just as with Lion last year, it’s about sharing ideas and concepts with iOS, not sharing the exact same interaction design or code. The words “Windows” and “Microsoft” are never mentioned, but the insinuation is clear: Apple sees a fundamental difference between software for the keyboard-and-mouse-pointer Mac and that for the touchscreen iPad. Mountain Lion is not a step towards a single OS that powers both the Mac and iPad, but rather another in a series of steps toward defining a set of shared concepts, styles, and principles between two fundamentally distinct OSes.
Major new features
-
iCloud, with an iOS-style easy signup process upon first turning on a new Mac or first logging into a new user account. Mountain Lion wants you to have an iCloud account.
-
iCloud document storage, and the biggest change to Open and Save dialog boxes in the 28-year history of the Mac. Mac App Store apps effectively have two modes for opening/saving documents: iCloud or the traditional local hierarchical file system. The traditional way is mostly unchanged from Lion (and, really, from all previous versions of Mac OS X). The iCloud way is visually distinctive: it looks like the iPad springboard — linen background, iOS-style one-level-only drag-one-on-top-of-another-to-create-one “folders”. It’s not a replacement of traditional Mac file management and organization. It’s a radically simplified alternative.
-
Apps have been renamed for cross-OS consistency. iChat is now Messages; iCal is now Calendar; Address Book is now Contacts. Missing apps have been added: Reminders and Notes look like Mac versions of their iOS counterparts. Now that these apps exist for the Mac, to-dos have been removed from Calendar and notes have been removed from Mail, leaving Calendar to simply handle calendaring and Mail to handle email.
The recurring theme: Apple is fighting against cruft — inconsistencies and oddities that have accumulated over the years, which made sense at one point but no longer — like managing to-dos in iCal (because CalDAV was being used to sync them to a server) or notes in Mail (because IMAP was the syncing back-end). The changes and additions in Mountain Lion are in a consistent vein: making things simpler and more obvious, closer to how things should be rather than simply how they always have been.
Schiller has no notes. He is every bit as articulate, precise, and rehearsed as he is for major on-stage events. He knows the slide deck stone cold. It strikes me that I have spoken in front of a thousand people but I’ve never been as well-prepared for a presentation as Schiller is for this one-on-one meeting. (Note to self: I should be that rehearsed.)
This is an awful lot of effort and attention in order to brief what I’m guessing is a list of a dozen or two writers and journalists. It’s Phil Schiller, spending an entire week on the East Coast, repeating this presentation over and over to a series of audiences of one. There was no less effort put into the preparation of this presentation than there would have been if it had been the WWDC keynote address.
What do I think so far, Schiller asks. It all seems rather obvious now that I’ve seen it — and I mean obvious in a good way. I remain convinced that iCloud is exactly what Steve Jobs said it was: the cornerstone of everything Apple does for the next decade. So of course it makes sense to bring iCloud to the Mac in a big way. Simplified document storage, iMessage, Notification Center2, synced Notes and Reminders — all of these things are part of iCloud. It’s all a step toward making your Mac just another device managed in your iCloud account. Look at your iPad and think about the features it has that would work well, for a lot of people, if they were on the Mac. That’s Mountain Lion — and probably a good way to predict the future of the continuing parallel evolution of iOS and OS X.3
But this, I say, waving around at the room, this feels a little odd. I’m getting the presentation from an Apple announcement event without the event. I’ve already been told that I’ll be going home with an early developer preview release of Mountain Lion. I’ve never been at a meeting like this, and I’ve never heard of Apple seeding writers with an as-yet-unannounced major update to an operating system. Apple is not exactly known for sharing details of as-yet-unannounced products, even if only just one week in advance. Why not hold an event to announce Mountain Lion — or make the announcement on apple.com before talking to us?
That’s when Schiller tells me they’re doing some things differently now.
I wonder immediately about that “now”. I don’t press, because I find the question that immediately sprang to mind uncomfortable. And some things remain unchanged: Apple executives explain what they want to explain, and they explain nothing more.
My gut feeling though, is this. Apple didn’t want to hold an event to announce Mountain Lion because those press events are precious. They just used one for the iBooks/education thing, and they’re almost certainly on the cusp of holding a major one for the iPad. They don’t want to wait to release the Mountain Lion preview because they want to give Mac developers months of time to adopt new APIs and to help Apple shake out bugs. So: an announcement without an event. But they don’t want Mountain Lion to go unheralded. They are keenly aware that many observers suspect or at least worry that the Mac is on the wane, relegated to the sideline in favor of the new and sensationally popular iPad.
Thus, these private briefings. Not merely to explain what Mountain Lion is — that could just as easily be done with a website or PDF feature guide — but to convey that the Mac and OS X remain both important and the subject of the company’s attention. The move to a roughly annual release cycle, to me, suggests that Apple is attempting to prove itself a walk-and-chew-gum-at-the-same-time company. Remember this, five years ago?
iPhone has already passed several of its required certification tests and is on schedule to ship in late June as planned. We can’t wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is. However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price — we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned. While Leopard’s features will be complete by then, we cannot deliver the quality release that we and our customers expect from us. We now plan to show our developers a near final version of Leopard at the conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their final testing, and ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we’re sure we’ve made the right ones.
Putting both iOS and OS X on an annual release schedule is a sign that Apple is confident it no longer needs to make such tradeoffs in engineering resources. There’s an aspect of Apple’s “now” — changes it needs to make, ways the company needs to adapt — that simply relate to just how damn big, and how successful, the company has become. They are in uncharted territory, success-wise. They are cognizant that they’re no longer the upstart, and are changing accordingly.
It seems important to Apple that the Mac not be perceived as an afterthought compared to the iPad, and, perhaps more importantly, that Apple not be perceived as itself considering or treating the Mac as an afterthought.
I’ve been using Mountain Lion for a week, preinstalled on a MacBook Air loaned to me by Apple. I have little to report: it’s good, and I look forward to installing the developer preview on my own personal Air. It’s a preview, incomplete and with bugs, but it feels at least as solid as Lion did a year ago in its developer previews.
I’m interested to see how developer support for Mac App Store-only features plays out. Two big ones: iCloud document storage and Notification Center. Both of these are slated only for third-party apps from the Mac App Store. Many developers, though, have been maintaining non-Mac App Store versions of their apps. If this continues, such apps are going to lose feature parity between the App Store and non-App Store versions. Apple is not taking the Mac in iOS’s “all apps must come through the App Store” direction, but they’re certainly encouraging developers to go Mac App Store-only with iCloud features that are only available to Mac App Store apps (and, thus, which have gone through the App Store approval process).
My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion:
- Only those from the App Store
- Only those from the App Store or which are signed by a developer ID
- Any app, whether signed or unsigned
The default for this setting is, I say, exactly right: the one in the middle, disallowing only unsigned apps. This default setting benefits users by increasing practical security, and also benefits developers, preserving the freedom to ship whatever software they want for the Mac, with no approval process.
Call me nuts, but that’s one feature I hope will someday go in the other direction — from OS X to iOS.
-
As soon as Schiller told me the name, I silently cursed myself for not having predicted it. Apple is a company of patterns. iPhone 3G, followed by a same-form-factor-but-faster 3GS; iPhone 4 followed by a same-form-factor-but-faster 4S. Leopard followed by Snow Leopard; so, of course: Lion followed by Mountain Lion. ↩
-
On the Mac, Notification Center alerts are decidedly inspired by those of Growl, a longstanding open source project that is now sold for $2 in the Mac App Store. I hereby predict “Apple ripped off Growl” as the mini-scandal of the day. ↩
-
There is a feature from the iPhone that I would love to see ported to the Mac, but which is not present in Mountain Lion: Siri. There’s either a strategic reason to keep Siri iPhone 4S-exclusive, or it’s a card Apple is holding to play at a later date. ↩
October 28, 2011
Jimi Hendrix First TV Appearance 1965 Views: 13,808
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
see all
All Comments (31)
-
i hadn't noticed he was playing a jag, and frankly can't believe it. i'm going back in to watch. wait which one is he again? hahahhaahaha.
next guy who points the arrow fuckup out gets it removed for everyone -
playing a Jaguar, like Kurt later...
-
AWESOME ! Very Horny Experience across the board.....Jimmy ~
-
that Was not Jimmy, jimmy is two guys to the left, playing lefty
-
Know how to spell his name?
-
ive never thought "skinny jeans" existed way back!
-
Yes. Jimi is the left-hand player. Can't believe the fool got that wrong.
-
Dear! Gay or not, they sing and dance so well as to leave all others behind!
-
Wow that was gay.
-
Jimi is playing a Jazzmaster, actually. And these guys have some "jazz hands"
-
that is not jimi hendrix he is not next to the saxaphone player and that guy is playing the guitar right handed
-
after seeing this lucky jim saved music with voodoo child and what not!
-
I think this is from a Nashville TV station--WSM. Jimi had just been discharged from the 101st Airborne and he was living in Nashville in those days.
-
Excellent, TY!
-
man, they are "light on their feet!"
-
Did anyone notice the star looking design right behind hendrix?! And the three looking figures pointing at him kind of?! Cool. He soon was a star!
-
Hendrix in the background doing what he does best, playing the shit out of a guitar.
-
Yeah,
Jimi is obviously the far left one. Look at the way he's going with his hand above his neck and doing some totally different stuff than the others haha.
And h's left handed off couse!
-
how can you be so fucking gay?
-
@gaejangguk the guy you pointed to in the beginning was not jimi, jimi played left hand and that guy was playing righty, the guy on the far left was jimi.
-
@jroxx11211 Good call, I was wondering about that!
-
@esslar1 thanks, if you look close you can see its definitely jimi playin left handed all the way on the left side, ROCK ON!!!
-
@Hawolation i give buddy and stacy two snaps up for being such well dressed mens
-
the picture that points out who jimi is is wrong. he is on the far right in the line of guitar/brass players
-
@sublime88sublime far left, sorry
-
i dont believe the still picture is JH, cuz Jimi is left handed and the guitarist is right.
-
@sosidecop64 he is playing a fender jaguar flipped over to a lefty setup
February 27, 2011
W3's MOST UNSEMANTI-CSS TERROR of 'em ALL (via Dogmeat Fruitcake-finder)
W3's MOST UNSEMANTI-CSS TERROR of 'em ALL (via Dogmeat Fruitcake-finder)
Shelby's Final Response to Tim Berners-Lee Regarding Semantics
As promised, I am responding to Tim Berners-Lee's post. Note, I will not be answering any debate on this thread. The following is my final position (for near future) on the issue of semantics and presentation.
Shelby's Final Response to Tim Berners-Lee Regarding Semantics
Do TBL and I Agree?
Tim Berners-Lee (TBL) posted[1] some opinions on semantics, as it related to a discussion Ian Hickson and I were having regarding semantics relative to XBL. I assume we all know that TBL was instrumental in creating the WWW and is noted expert on semantic web. I am not clear if TBL read the entire thread, leading up to my single post he cited. I assume it is possible that TBL did not fully read the context (whole thread) within which I quoted from his web documents. I am assuming he is very busy and has limited time fo dwelve into all threads of W3C. I also assume he avoids "political" discussion. Since I was unable to speak to TBL to clarify my views, I will clarify here. I think when my entire view is taken into consideration, it is even more clear to me that I agree factually with TBL's statements about semantics, both on his web documents and in his post here[1]. And more importantly, that my positions against merging semantic _controlling_ layers with presentation layers[2] is even more consistent with TBL's position on the importance of consistent, standard _implementation_ and _use_ of semantics as specified in social contracts (e.g. laws or authoritative standard specifications). My position was never for anarchy. To the contrary, I feel I am fighting against anarchy and fighting for more relevant standards, with my efforts to oppose the mayhem that might arise from inappropriate merging of layers.
Why Did I Quote TBL?
In discussing whether CSS was the correct layer to do XBL binding, Ian Hickson and I got into a lengthy "discussion" to try to define what defines and controls semantics. I was asserting that CSS is presentation and that presentation is not able to implement or change semantics. I asserted that XBL is able to implement and change semantics. Since semantics is expected to be consistent at the markup layer, then I asserted that any web programming architecture capable of implementing (new tags) or changing semantics, should be orthogonally in the markup layer (above DOM and parsing of markup).
My understanding of Ian Hickson's position was that he felt nothing could change or implement semantics, because he asserted that they are under complete control of the specification for markup. I responded that at least for the case of new tags that might be implemented by XBL, then the implementation itself might be the de facto social contract (the specification) in force. Ian responded that "new tags have no meaning". I think he may have later clarified that he meant new tags have no relevant meaning to HTML specification, but that was well after I had quoted TBL.
Ian and I were also discussing one of Ian's examples, wherein Ian was using XBL and regular expression parsing to interpret the content within an "content" tag, as a date. I asserted that he was by passing the parser and markup layer and using scripting to essentially bind the markup and presentation layer in "non-standard" ways. In this context, I mean "non-standard" because other layers will not have opportunity to understand the semantics he was applying in his scripting. I asserted that for the semantic web, it was better he markup the date using a custom tag "" and use an XSLT transform to implement his special semantics of that content. I asserted that the tag (but not the content? what could be done about this?) would be ignored by UAs which did not understand or implement the suggested XSLT layer. Ian responded that his example was purely presentation and that no semantics were being changed or defined by parsing the sub-content as a date. Realize that although I have suggest XSLT as an alternative solution, that it may not be the ideal one, so refuting XSLT _alone_ for this purpose, does not justify XBL.
I quoted[1] TBL to make the point that by allowing social contracts for semantics of varying scope (internalized applications, small intranets, up thru www and beyond) to happen in decentralized[4] manner, then it is essential to success. I quoted[1] TBL to provide a basis for new tags having meaning on varying scopes. This does not mean that those tags have to interfere with tags that have W3C scope. I also assert[2] that transforming markup to markup preserves the W3C scope better than XBL approach. And that if Ian had a special semantics he wanted to add on top of the HTML layer, then I asserted he should put it in the layer on top of HTML, and not by creating a web programming architecture to change semantics from the presentation layer.
Does CSS Already Have Capability to Change Semantics?
No[2]. Please read the cited reference carefully for the test I use to answer that question. Although Ian did point out one obscure example wherein CSS can render an empty paragraph with an outlined box, and the HTML spec says that empty paragraphs should not be rendered. I think CSS is still not rendering the paragraph. It is rendering an empty box. In any case, one would need very compelling examples of CSS capabilities to alter semantics, and in that case I would argue those capabilities would be mistakes in CSS (if you agree with my test[2]), if they exist. The whole point of CSS was to be __optional hints__ to the presentation. Note I got ridiculed by Daniel Glazman for making that point[7]. Presentation should not be involved in semantics that are specified for and by markup layer.
As far as I know, one of the main thrusts of CSS movement was to get the presentation layer out of the markup layer. Do we want to go backwards by merging them again in complex ways?
My Vision
So why does keeping layers orthogonal outweigh the conveniences of specialized architecture? First of all, TBL's Principle of Least Power[5] and his Principle of Modular Design[6] point out abstractly that keeping layers well focused (least power for main goals) and modular (separated and orthogonal) is essential to a scalable web design. I quoted these in my first post[9], and I was again ridiculed by Daniel Glazman in response[8].
More importantly, my vision is being able to quickly build a plethora of new user agents (UAs) simply by mixing and matching (open source) components. The components should be small, well documented, efficient, and orthogonal. And I envision more plethora of layers built on top of that with authored architecture. I envision a very rich web. Apparently, Ian Hickson prefers a centralized web controlled by smaller (never greater than number of web authors), backlogged (e.g. Mozilla) teams of UA programmers[10].
-Shelby Moore [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0190.html (follow TBL's citation of my quote and read multiple posts from Ian and me around that time) [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0147.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0191.html [4] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles#Decentrali [5] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles#PLP [6] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles#Modular [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0003.html [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0188.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0171.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0198.html (Ian wrote: "I'd rather have one team per UA implement ...")
From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 04:10:37 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20030109024024.01737b60(null)>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Shelby's Final Response to Tim Berners-Lee Regarding Semantics
Shelby's Final Response to Tim Berners-Lee Regarding Semantics
Do TBL and I Agree?
Tim Berners-Lee (TBL) posted[1] some opinions on semantics, as it related to a discussion Ian Hickson and I were having regarding semantics relative to XBL. I assume we all know that TBL was instrumental in creating the WWW and is noted expert on semantic web. I am not clear if TBL read the entire thread, leading up to my single post he cited. I assume it is possible that TBL did not fully read the context (whole thread) within which I quoted from his web documents. I am assuming he is very busy and has limited time fo dwelve into all threads of W3C. I also assume he avoids "political" discussion. Since I was unable to speak to TBL to clarify my views, I will clarify here. I think when my entire view is taken into consideration, it is even more clear to me that I agree factually with TBL's statements about semantics, both on his web documents and in his post here[1]. And more importantly, that my positions against merging semantic _controlling_ layers with presentation layers[2] is even more consistent with TBL's position on the importance of consistent, standard _implementation_ and _use_ of semantics as specified in social contracts (e.g. laws or authoritative standard specifications). My position was never for anarchy. To the contrary, I feel I am fighting against anarchy and fighting for more relevant standards, with my efforts to oppose the mayhem that might arise from inappropriate merging of layers.
Why Did I Quote TBL?
In discussing whether CSS was the correct layer to do XBL binding, Ian Hickson and I got into a lengthy "discussion" to try to define what defines and controls semantics. I was asserting that CSS is presentation and that presentation is not able to implement or change semantics. I asserted that XBL is able to implement and change semantics. Since semantics is expected to be consistent at the markup layer, then I asserted that any web programming architecture capable of implementing (new tags) or changing semantics, should be orthogonally in the markup layer (above DOM and parsing of markup).
My understanding of Ian Hickson's position was that he felt nothing could change or implement semantics, because he asserted that they are under complete control of the specification for markup. I responded that at least for the case of new tags that might be implemented by XBL, then the implementation itself might be the de facto social contract (the specification) in force. Ian responded that "new tags have no meaning". I think he may have later clarified that he meant new tags have no relevant meaning to HTML specification, but that was well after I had quoted TBL.
Ian and I were also discussing one of Ian's examples, wherein Ian was using XBL and regular expression parsing to interpret the content within an "content" tag, as a date. I asserted that he was by passing the parser and markup layer and using scripting to essentially bind the markup and presentation layer in "non-standard" ways. In this context, I mean "non-standard" because other layers will not have opportunity to understand the semantics he was applying in his scripting. I asserted that for the semantic web, it was better he markup the date using a custom tag "" and use an XSLT transform to implement his special semantics of that content. I asserted that the tag (but not the content? what could be done about this?) would be ignored by UAs which did not understand or implement the suggested XSLT layer. Ian responded that his example was purely presentation and that no semantics were being changed or defined by parsing the sub-content as a date. Realize that although I have suggest XSLT as an alternative solution, that it may not be the ideal one, so refuting XSLT _alone_ for this purpose, does not justify XBL.
I quoted[1] TBL to make the point that by allowing social contracts for semantics of varying scope (internalized applications, small intranets, up thru www and beyond) to happen in decentralized[4] manner, then it is essential to success. I quoted[1] TBL to provide a basis for new tags having meaning on varying scopes. This does not mean that those tags have to interfere with tags that have W3C scope. I also assert[2] that transforming markup to markup preserves the W3C scope better than XBL approach. And that if Ian had a special semantics he wanted to add on top of the HTML layer, then I asserted he should put it in the layer on top of HTML, and not by creating a web programming architecture to change semantics from the presentation layer.
Does CSS Already Have Capability to Change Semantics?
No[2]. Please read the cited reference carefully for the test I use to answer that question. Although Ian did point out one obscure example wherein CSS can render an empty paragraph with an outlined box, and the HTML spec says that empty paragraphs should not be rendered. I think CSS is still not rendering the paragraph. It is rendering an empty box. In any case, one would need very compelling examples of CSS capabilities to alter semantics, and in that case I would argue those capabilities would be mistakes in CSS (if you agree with my test[2]), if they exist. The whole point of CSS was to be __optional hints__ to the presentation. Note I got ridiculed by Daniel Glazman for making that point[7]. Presentation should not be involved in semantics that are specified for and by markup layer.
As far as I know, one of the main thrusts of CSS movement was to get the presentation layer out of the markup layer. Do we want to go backwards by merging them again in complex ways?
My Vision
So why does keeping layers orthogonal outweigh the conveniences of specialized architecture? First of all, TBL's Principle of Least Power[5] and his Principle of Modular Design[6] point out abstractly that keeping layers well focused (least power for main goals) and modular (separated and orthogonal) is essential to a scalable web design. I quoted these in my first post[9], and I was again ridiculed by Daniel Glazman in response[8].
More importantly, my vision is being able to quickly build a plethora of new user agents (UAs) simply by mixing and matching (open source) components. The components should be small, well documented, efficient, and orthogonal. And I envision more plethora of layers built on top of that with authored architecture. I envision a very rich web. Apparently, Ian Hickson prefers a centralized web controlled by smaller (never greater than number of web authors), backlogged (e.g. Mozilla) teams of UA programmers[10].
-Shelby Moore [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0190.html (follow TBL's citation of my quote and read multiple posts from Ian and me around that time) [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0147.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0191.html [4] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles#Decentrali [5] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles#PLP [6] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles#Modular [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0003.html [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0188.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0171.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0198.html (Ian wrote: "I'd rather have one team per UA implement ...")
MORE » on Dogmeat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Top Comments ~Why would you put Monk and Trane in the title if they aren't in the video? I can sort of understand Monk, I guess, since he was the composer, but Trane? Why?
*read the history of this historic video shoot and get back to me!!! Flatwound1000 5 months ago
"Wes Montgomery" guitar Trane "John Coltrane" sax Monk "Thelonious Monk" piano "Round Midnight" Jazz Music
This is great music.
Oh well, whats in a name.
Thanks for posting this video
and happinness isn't something you achieve or accomplish it's a state of being that takes place after fulfillment. more like bliss,
Now please tell me what am I going to do with all this popcorn!
Wow, and I thought this was the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Monk and Trane and Wes would be too perfect!
Monterey has made extensive tapes of the performances over the years but these have never surfaced
John Coltrane (ss, ts) Eric Dolphy (as, bcl) McCoy Tyner (p) Wes Montgomery (g) Reggie Workman (b) Elvin Jones (d)
"Monterey Jazz Festival", Monterey, CA, September 22, 1961 My Favorite Things rejected Naima - So What / Impressions -
As to Trane and Wes playing together, I've heard McCoy Tyner describe it as Wes was playing down the street from the Coltrane Quartet for one week and came and sat in 3 or 4 times - according to McCoy it worked some nights and didn't on others.
The Monk and Trane tags were annoying. I was listening to the 1947 version and saw this in the suggestions column and had to click on it immediately when i thought there was a chance that it might have all 3 somehow.
but wes is not only one of the best, but one of the most unique musicians of all time. i don't care wat song, or who with, if it's got wes in it it'll be incredible