AJAX web applications examples

W

Woolly Mittens

Spartanicus said:
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?
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Woolly said:
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".
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.
 
H

hyweljenkins

Spartanicus said:
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.
 
T

tm

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
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, (e-mail address removed) 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.)
 
T

Travis Newbury

Woolly said:
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.
 
W

Woolly Mittens

Leif said:
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.
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
 
W

Woolly Mittens

Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, (e-mail address removed) quothed:




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
 
W

Woolly Mittens

Travis said:
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.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Woolly said:
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.
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)

--
 
W

Woolly Mittens

Travis said:
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.
 
M

mark | r

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.

HEAR HEAR

mark
 
T

Travis Newbury

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

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

Evert | Collab

Travis said:
Can't now, or couldn't this morning?




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
 
L

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen

Woolly Mittens said:
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
 
W

Woolly Mittens

Travis said:
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?
 
W

Woolly Mittens

Evert said:
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?
 
T

Travis Newbury

Woolly said:
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
 

Ask a Question

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.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top