AJAX web applications examples

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005.

  1. Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Woolly Mittens

    Spartanicus Guest

    Woolly Mittens <> wrote:

    >http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727091300000


    You are violating w3c guidelines by serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html.

    I couldn't read the text (microfont).

    The above text was written without spelling errors.

    (silly statement eh? Similar to placing valid html/css buttons on a web
    page).

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Jul 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Spartanicus wrote:

    >
    >>http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727091300000

    >
    >
    > You are violating w3c guidelines by serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html.


    Complain to my provider

    > I couldn't read the text (microfont).


    Use ctrl+ to make the font as large as you want.

    > The above text was written without spelling errors.
    >
    > (silly statement eh? Similar to placing valid html/css buttons on a web
    > page).
    >


    Are you a griefer?
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Woolly Mittens wrote:
    > Spartanicus wrote:
    >
    >> You are violating w3c guidelines by serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html.

    >
    > Complain to my provider


    If you can't change the MIME type, you should switch to a different
    version of (X)HTML. That has nothing to do with your "provider".

    >> I couldn't read the text (microfont).

    >
    > Use ctrl+ to make the font as large as you want.


    My browser's default font was chosen to suit my particular vision needs.
    I don't want to re-make that choice every time I view a Web page. If you
    think your preferences are more important than those of your visitor,
    the visitor will go elsewhere.
    Leif K-Brooks, Jul 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Woolly Mittens

    Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Woolly Mittens <> wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727091300000

    >
    > You are violating w3c guidelines by serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html.
    >
    > I couldn't read the text (microfont).
    >
    > The above text was written without spelling errors.


    FFS, when will people here stop being so bloody anal about this stuff.
    The work that Woollymittens has submitted, because it may be of
    interest, isn't compulsory reading. So, if the text is too small for
    you, either do as he suggests and change the size in your browser, or
    piss off to another site that uses 48pt Sans Serif.

    Instead of smart arse responses like yours, why not make an effort to
    read the content and offer some contructive feedback.

    alt.html used to be a cracking group. Now it's degenerated in to the
    slop that is/was CIWAH. A bunch of in-crowd know-it-alls that are
    simply here to inflate their egos by stomping on others. I know - I've
    done it too, but now it's tiresome.

    --
    Hywel
    , Jul 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Woolly Mittens

    tm Guest

    wrote:
    > Spartanicus wrote:
    > > Woolly Mittens <> wrote:


    > > >http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727091300000

    > >
    > > You are violating w3c guidelines by serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html.
    > >
    > > I couldn't read the text (microfont).
    > >
    > > The above text was written without spelling errors.

    >
    > FFS, when will people here stop being so bloody anal about this stuff.
    > The work that Woollymittens has submitted, because it may be of
    > interest, isn't compulsory reading. So, if the text is too small for
    > you, either do as he suggests and change the size in your browser, or
    > piss off to another site that uses 48pt Sans Serif.
    >
    > Instead of smart arse responses like yours, why not make an effort to
    > read the content and offer some contructive feedback.


    heh. 'Constructive'. HTH

    > alt.html used to be a cracking group. Now it's degenerated in to the
    > slop that is/was CIWAH. A bunch of in-crowd know-it-alls that are
    > simply here to inflate their egos by stomping on others. I know - I've
    > done it too, but now it's tiresome.
    tm, Jul 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Woolly Mittens

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, quothed:

    > alt.html used to be a cracking group. Now it's degenerated in to the
    > slop that is/was CIWAH. A bunch of in-crowd know-it-alls that are
    > simply here to inflate their egos by stomping on others. I know - I've
    > done it too, but now it's tiresome.


    Ah, Hywel... That's the best thing you ever wrote. 'Hats off to you,
    bud. (I, too, have executed my egotistical faux pai.)

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Jul 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Woolly Mittens wrote:
    > I made a few AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) applications for a
    > presentation. You might want to have a look at the showcase.


    Just courious, why put the links to the w3c if you don't validate?

    For me, the jury is still out on AJAX. I like what can be done with it
    (Google Maps is most impresive), but I am finding very little advantage
    over doing the same thing with Flash. For example your "Battle Ship"
    was a 2 meg download. The same game could have been done with a 100k
    flash file.

    In any event, AJAX is interesting to say the least.


    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jul 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > Woolly Mittens wrote:
    > If you can't change the MIME type, you should switch to a different
    > version of (X)HTML. That has nothing to do with your "provider".
    >


    You know as well as I do that the <?xml think is used to force internet
    explorer into quirks-mode. In an ideal world, the hack wouldn't be
    needed. But in an ideal world, there wouldn't be sourpusses either.

    >
    >>>I couldn't read the text (microfont).

    >>
    >>Use ctrl+ to make the font as large as you want.

    >
    >
    > My browser's default font was chosen to suit my particular vision needs.
    > I don't want to re-make that choice every time I view a Web page. If you
    > think your preferences are more important than those of your visitor,
    > the visitor will go elsewhere.


    This is ridiculous. It's a mark-up language. What you are saying is that
    all markup-is strictly prohibited because you like it that way?

    My stylesheet is my suggestion to your browser. Your browser can ignore
    it if you don't like it.

    What you are trying to do, is turn this thread into a flame-trap. This
    will be my last reply to you, unless you stop acting like a jerk.

    Woolly
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Neredbojias wrote:
    > With neither quill nor qualm, quothed:
    >
    >
    >>alt.html used to be a cracking group. Now it's degenerated in to the
    >>slop that is/was CIWAH. A bunch of in-crowd know-it-alls that are
    >>simply here to inflate their egos by stomping on others. I know - I've
    >>done it too, but now it's tiresome.

    >
    >
    > Ah, Hywel... That's the best thing you ever wrote. 'Hats off to you,
    > bud. (I, too, have executed my egotistical faux pai.)
    >


    In the ideal world everything would conform to the standards. I used the
    "<?xml" header to confuse internet explorer 6 into using quirksmode. I
    did this because internet explorer 5.5 has no standards-mode.

    Offcourse in an ideal world there would be no troll to bitch about
    details and ignore the creativity. Half a dozen people put a lot of time
    into this game, it kinda hurts to see some busybody moan about details,
    but I'm used to it by now.

    Let me know if you find some real bugs in the game, there's bound to be
    plenty.

    Woolly
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Woolly Mittens wrote:
    > Just courious, why put the links to the w3c if you don't validate?


    This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1, heck I dunno. What more do you guys want?

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...s.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727070000000

    SOME pages on my site might not validate. I try to be vigilant about
    this though, fixing things where I spot them.

    >
    > For me, the jury is still out on AJAX. I like what can be done with it
    > (Google Maps is most impresive), but I am finding very little advantage
    > over doing the same thing with Flash. For example your "Battle Ship"
    > was a 2 meg download. The same game could have been done with a 100k
    > flash file.
    >


    The map's a 400KB jpeg and there's 4 of them. I'd be very much surprised
    if you got it in a 100K flash file.

    You know what the cool part is though. You can write a flash front-end
    to the same server-application. Yes, you can make the flash version to
    this game, using the very same server and play against people using the
    DHTML version. That's the nice thing about this whole AJAX business.
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Woolly Mittens wrote:
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > > Just courious, why put the links to the w3c if you don't validate?

    > This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1, heck I dunno. What more do you guys want?


    Clicking th button takes you to the w3c validation page and fails. My
    question was NOT why doesn't your page validate, but why do you have
    the validation button but the page lined to the button fails to
    validate.

    > > For me, the jury is still out on AJAX. I like what can be done with it
    > > (Google Maps is most impresive), but I am finding very little advantage
    > > over doing the same thing with Flash. For example your "Battle Ship"
    > > was a 2 meg download. The same game could have been done with a 100k
    > > flash file.

    > The map's a 400KB jpeg and there's 4 of them. I'd be very much surprised
    > if you got it in a 100K flash file.


    Well first if the map is a 400K JPG then you need to work on your
    photoshop skills. Because there was nothing in the map that would
    require a size like that. Second why load all 4 maps before you start?
    You can load the first one, then in the background load the others. If
    google maps doesn't need a 2 meg download then you most certinly don't
    either.

    > You know what the cool part is though. You can write a flash front-end
    > to the same server-application. Yes, you can make the flash version to
    > this game, using the very same server and play against people using the
    > DHTML version. That's the nice thing about this whole AJAX business.


    I read several articles about AJAX and Flash together. One I believe
    was in the (official?) AJAX web site. As a matter of fact, I believe
    it actually wrapped the google maps.

    But I still fail to see the advantage of AJAX. (Though I do not
    discount it)

    --
    Travis Newbury, Jul 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Clicking th button takes you to the w3c validation page and fails. My
    > question was NOT why doesn't your page validate, but why do you have
    > the validation button but the page lined to the button fails to
    > validate.
    >


    Could you please say which page doesn't validate? I can't find any.

    > But I still fail to see the advantage of AJAX. (Though I do not
    > discount it)
    >


    Well, you're talking to webservices. That's all there is too it. No
    AJAX-magic no nothing. It's not new, it's all been done before. Talking
    to servers seems something you can't discount? There would be no
    internet without it.
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Woolly Mittens

    mark | r Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Spartanicus wrote:
    > > Woolly Mittens <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727091300000

    > >
    > > You are violating w3c guidelines by serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html.
    > >
    > > I couldn't read the text (microfont).
    > >
    > > The above text was written without spelling errors.

    >
    > FFS, when will people here stop being so bloody anal about this stuff.
    > The work that Woollymittens has submitted, because it may be of
    > interest, isn't compulsory reading. So, if the text is too small for
    > you, either do as he suggests and change the size in your browser, or
    > piss off to another site that uses 48pt Sans Serif.
    >
    > Instead of smart arse responses like yours, why not make an effort to
    > read the content and offer some contructive feedback.
    >
    > alt.html used to be a cracking group. Now it's degenerated in to the
    > slop that is/was CIWAH. A bunch of in-crowd know-it-alls that are
    > simply here to inflate their egos by stomping on others. I know - I've
    > done it too, but now it's tiresome.
    >
    > --
    > Hywel


    HEAR HEAR

    mark
    mark | r, Jul 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Woolly Mittens wrote:
    > > Clicking th button takes you to the w3c validation page and fails. My
    > > question was NOT why doesn't your page validate, but why do you have
    > > the validation button but the page lined to the button fails to
    > > validate.

    > Could you please say which page doesn't validate? I can't find any.


    Can't now, or couldn't this morning?

    > > But I still fail to see the advantage of AJAX. (Though I do not
    > > discount it)

    > Well, you're talking to webservices. That's all there is too it. No
    > AJAX-magic no nothing. It's not new, it's all been done before. Talking
    > to servers seems something you can't discount? There would be no
    > internet without it.


    I see no advantage in using AJAX over using Flash to perform the same
    thing.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jul 26, 2005
    #15
  16. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Woolly Mittens wrote:
    >
    >>>Clicking th button takes you to the w3c validation page and fails. My
    >>>question was NOT why doesn't your page validate, but why do you have
    >>>the validation button but the page lined to the button fails to
    >>>validate.

    >>
    >>Could you please say which page doesn't validate? I can't find any.

    >
    >
    > Can't now, or couldn't this morning?
    >
    >
    >>>But I still fail to see the advantage of AJAX. (Though I do not
    >>>discount it)

    >>
    >>Well, you're talking to webservices. That's all there is too it. No
    >>AJAX-magic no nothing. It's not new, it's all been done before. Talking
    >>to servers seems something you can't discount? There would be no
    >>internet without it.

    >
    >
    > I see no advantage in using AJAX over using Flash to perform the same
    > thing.
    >

    Yea totally agree, I wouldn't even be suprised the number of people
    using flash (which is 98% now IIRC) is more than the number of people
    that have JS enabled.

    I even saw people using AJAX to let flash communicate to a webservice
    [now thats crazy]

    Evert
    Evert | Collab, Jul 26, 2005
    #16
  17. Woolly Mittens <> writes:

    > I made a few AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) applications for a
    > presentation. You might want to have a look at the showcase.
    >
    > http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/details.asp?id=20050727091300000
    >
    > And uhm yes... I made a massive multiplayer online battleships game in it.


    Man, that game sure is network hungry. I think it uses 2-4 times the
    bandwidth of Wolfenstein multiplayer. Funny though :)

    I also think that the font size for the text page is quite small, but
    it's not something that bothers me (because I have
    body {font-size:100% !important}
    in my user.css :p) Still, I also recommend using the user's default
    font size for the main text.

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jul 26, 2005
    #17
  18. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Woolly Mittens wrote:
    >
    > I see no advantage in using AJAX over using Flash to perform the same
    > thing.
    >


    Are we agreeing on the same thing or what? Your flash talks to the
    server, my script talks to the same server. What the heck are we
    disagreeing on?
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #18
  19. Evert | Collab wrote:
    > Yea totally agree, I wouldn't even be suprised the number of people
    > using flash (which is 98% now IIRC) is more than the number of people
    > that have JS enabled.
    >
    > I even saw people using AJAX to let flash communicate to a webservice
    > [now thats crazy]
    >
    > Evert


    I'm not pro or contra to anything. I don't see the big deal honestly.
    Religiously defending either flash or javascript.

    Hey... I use either when the need arrises, can you say the same?
    Woolly Mittens, Jul 26, 2005
    #19
  20. Woolly Mittens wrote:
    >> I see no advantage in using AJAX over using Flash to perform the same
    >> thing.

    > Are we agreeing on the same thing or what? Your flash talks to the
    > server, my script talks to the same server. What the heck are we
    > disagreeing on?


    I am not disagreeing on anything

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jul 26, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Davis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    727
    John Davis
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. minnie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    685
    Andrew Thompson
    Dec 13, 2006
  3. Stefan Ram
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    364
    Stefan Ram
    Mar 23, 2010
  4. Anil
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    425
    Jean-Luc David [MS-MVP]
    Jul 31, 2004
  5. John Davis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    362
    John Davis
    Aug 21, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page