CSS Code that Only Runs for IE 6

E

Els

Stephan said:
Brackets. Your parenthetical remark was in brackets, round brackets to
be more specific. There is no getting away from this.

Ouch. Sorry to butt in (like a goat) here but I think parentheses is
correct. I don't think "round brackets" is right.

() - parentheses
[] - brackets
{} - braces
<> - angle brackets

This may be a language thing. I refer to the 4 glyphs above as brackets,
square brackets, braces, and angle brackets respectively....

just my 2p

Same in Dutch really, we don't even have a word for parentheses that
is not brackets.

And Wikipedia backs you up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket
 
R

Rob Waaijenberg

Stephan Bird schreef:
() - parentheses
[] - brackets
{} - braces
<> - angle brackets

This may be a language thing. I refer to the 4 glyphs above as brackets,
square brackets, braces, and angle brackets respectively....

just my 2p

Stephan


() - haakjes
[] - vleeshaken a.k.a. blokhaken a.k.a. vierkante haken
{} - accolades
<> - vishaken or kleiner dan-teken/groter dan-teken
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Bone said:
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:44:27 GMT
Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:


Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...

Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
 
S

Steven Saunderson

() - parentheses
[] - brackets
{} - braces
<> - angle brackets

This may be a language thing. I refer to the 4 glyphs above as brackets,
square brackets, braces, and angle brackets respectively....

You are right. I should have said 'square brackets' for [] to avoid the
ambiguity. I've never heard 'round brackets' so I've learnt something
here.
 
B

Bone Ur

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:33:50
GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed:
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...

It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"
 
D

dorayme

Steven Saunderson said:
() - parentheses
[] - brackets
{} - braces
<> - angle brackets

This may be a language thing. I refer to the 4 glyphs above as brackets,
square brackets, braces, and angle brackets respectively....

You are right. I should have said 'square brackets' for [] to avoid the
ambiguity. I've never heard 'round brackets' so I've learnt something
here.

Well, I am not able to follow this "thread off a thread"
completely, who is saying who is right and what is what. But then
I have just woke up.

Let me just say this. My idiolect is governed by a custom
dictionary and in this dictionary there is a family of brackets,
and the round ones are there, common and without attitude,
(unlike the haughty square, the frilly curly, and the
avante-garde). The family itself has a name, namely "brackets".

People can make parenthetical remarks in speech and in writing
and these remarks can be indicated in various ways. Quite common
in writing is to use the round brackets. And if someone is using
them for by-the-way or parenthetical remarks then it is fine to
refer to them by the means of their expression.

Some people set themselves up as sticklers in language. We need
these people. But we don't need the ones that forget that there
is a complex evolving process going on in living languages.
Before correcting someone, one should ensure that one is not like
a crazy naturalist who objects to God if he sees things in nature
that do not accord to his rigid classifications.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Bone said:
Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)

Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...

Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...

It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"

I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg
 
D

dorayme

Ben C said:
Can you give an example of such a statement?

Think of the history of the atomic theory. If you go back far
enough, statements were made about the material world being made
of tiny invisible things. No one came up with even mildly
convincing ways to test the idea. It was not just a matter of
practicalities, it was a matter of even imagining such tests.
Perhaps this latter point of mine echoes your reason for your
preferred method of describing this, namely, "no verification
conditions".

Aristotle was able to take the field from the atomists for a very
long time. But by the 16th and especially the 17th centuries,
there began to be more significant experimental data which needed
an explanation. Enter the atomic theory.

Of course, I greatly oversimplify.

Even statements which have been regarded as refutable by mere
inspection of their meanings, (never mind being dismissed for
lack of evidence or means of verification), have turned out to be
seen to be true by intelligent and knowledgeable people
eventually. But since you have not asked about this, I will
resist going on.
I would have put it differently: there are many meaningful statements
that don't have any verification conditions.


I'm not seeing this one. The statement was "your reasons are wrong
because you didn't state them". It's a total presumption by Mr K., but
isn't he just presuming that the OP is clueless, not that the meaning of
any statement is its truth conditions?

Well, you might care to be charitable to him. But he was rude to
me and I am a vengeful character and it takes me a while to
settle down. I prefer for the moment to interpret him in the most
uncharitable way within bounds of decency. <g>

Let us go through it:

"your reasons are wrong because you didn't state them"

lends itself to the idea that only stated reasons can be right
ones. This is obviously not so. People can have good reasons for
things without stating them. And the analogy, and it is only an
analogy, is the positivist idea that something cannot be true
unless there is an explicit understanding of the means of
verification.

You see, what is an analogy for one being might well puzzle
another. No one has quite the same mind as I have. But I sort of
hope a couple of people on earth might now and then understand me.
 
B

Ben C

Ben C said:
[...] [...]
There are many statements that have turned out to be true that,
while not obviously incomprehensible, were quite unaccompanied by
any known means of testing."

Can you give an example of such a statement?
Think of the history of the atomic theory. If you go back far enough,
statements were made about the material world being made of tiny
invisible things. No one came up with even mildly convincing ways to
test the idea. It was not just a matter of practicalities, it was a
matter of even imagining such tests.

Good example. The next move for the strong verificationist at this point
might be to try to show that atomic theory was analytic, and therefore
not a statement of fact.
Perhaps this latter point of mine echoes your reason for your
preferred method of describing this, namely, "no verification
conditions".

I meant to put the emphasis more on "meaningful". The point is, not
everything meaningful is either true or false at all. I think this is a
different objection to verificationism from the one you are thinking of.

[...]
Even statements which have been regarded as refutable by mere
inspection of their meanings, (never mind being dismissed for
lack of evidence or means of verification)
have turned out to be seen to be true by intelligent and knowledgeable
people eventually. But since you have not asked about this, I will
resist going on.

Do you mean paradoxes? I'm sure quite a few people must have thought
special relativity refutable a priori.
 
D

dorayme

Ben C said:
Ben C said:
[...] [...]
There are many statements that have turned out to be true that,
while not obviously incomprehensible, were quite unaccompanied by
any known means of testing."

Can you give an example of such a statement?
Think of the history of the atomic theory. If you go back far enough,
statements were made about the material world being made of tiny
invisible things. No one came up with even mildly convincing ways to
test the idea. It was not just a matter of practicalities, it was a
matter of even imagining such tests.

Good example. The next move for the strong verificationist at this point
might be to try to show that atomic theory was analytic, and therefore
not a statement of fact.

Well, I doubt this in this case. What actually happens in these
sorts of cases is that there is a push to give a verificationist
interpretation. In other words, if the meaning is a bit obscure
to a positivist thinker, but he nevertheless sees the potential
or actual scientific advantage or success in the theory, he will
give it an explicit meaning in terms of the means by which it is
to be verified. Or at least, that is his programmatic intention!

A nice example of this and perhaps one more familiar to the
general reader is the attempt by the behaviourists in both
philosophy and psychology to think that statements about the mind
are only truly meaningful when cashed out in terms of actual
behaviour. "He is agitated" is, to be crude, "him pacing up and
down". I use the term "cash out" to hide the very real
complications. They go from the very crude to the very
sophisticated. It is fun to watch a positivist in action, he is
truly acrobatic and though the best of them take a deep breath
when confronted by difficult cases (like examples of inner mental
life that have few if any outward signs), bravely go forth and
have a go. They don't succeed in my opinion, but that is another
matter.
I meant to put the emphasis more on "meaningful". The point is, not
everything meaningful is either true or false at all. I think this is a
different objection to verificationism from the one you are thinking of.
Well, I am not sure what you are saying here. Of course, not
every meaningful string is a claim that can be true or false. But
all such strings can be part of such claims (this is very easy to
demonstrate). And it is precisely when they are part of truth
claims that the positivist's eagle eyed attention is drawn.
[...]
Even statements which have been regarded as refutable by mere
inspection of their meanings, (never mind being dismissed for
lack of evidence or means of verification)
have turned out to be seen to be true by intelligent and knowledgeable
people eventually. But since you have not asked about this, I will
resist going on.

Do you mean paradoxes? I'm sure quite a few people must have thought
special relativity refutable a priori.


No, not paradoxes. I simplify but this might give an idea:

Take, as an example, the old idea of a materialist theory of
mind. Take the form of it that identifies the mind with the
brain. It has been quite a long tradition - until some clever
and persistent Australian philosophers came along about 35 years
ago - to dismiss the idea on the grounds that it makes no sense.
Never mind is it true! The brain, these traditionalists, note,
has weight in pounds and size in inches, has a grey colour and is
pretty slimy when inspected. But these qualities are not even the
sorts of qualities that it makes any sense to attribute to a
mind. Or so it was said. So they dismissed the theory. They just
looked at the meanings!

However, certain distinctions were really quite missed by these
traditionalists. A crucial one was the one between meaning and
reference. Two statements can have quite different meanings in
the words used. But the words used might yet refer to the very
same object.

Specifically, one description might be deemed to refer to
something successfully, another description similarly. The
objects referred to, might, when counted, add up to 2. But they
might also only add up to 1. In the latter case, both
descriptions refer to the very same thing. The meaning does not
depend on the utterer knowing the sum.

Here is an example. I report that I was rudely jostled by a tall
man in a grey coat in a street. You, being unsighted at the time,
report that you were jostled by someone with a bad tempered voice
pushing his way through. The words in the descriptions here are
quite different in meaning. And yet both descriptions, unknown to
us, could easily refer to the same man.

Meaning and reference are not to be confused with each other.
That does not mean there is no connections between the two. But
the difference is quite enough to generate the most wide ranging
set of fascinating cases that can be illustrated in the history
of science, from astronomy (for a long time it was not known that
The Evening Star was the very same as The Morning Star
(Phosphorus and Hesperus were in fact, it later became known, the
one and only Venus) to genetics (think of Mendelian terminology
and concepts and modern genetics) and many other fields.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Beauregard said:
Bone said:
Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"

I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg

No "Bones" about that! <groan>
 
R

rf

Jonathan N. Little said:
Beauregard said:
Bone said:
Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"

I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg

No "Bones" about that! <groan>

You're not going to get away Scotty free for *that* one.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

rf said:
Jonathan N. Little said:
Beauregard said:
Bone Ur wrote:

Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"
I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg
No "Bones" about that! <groan>

You're not going to get away Scotty free for *that* one.

You guys S-Uhura are funny.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

rf said:
Jonathan N. Little said:
Beauregard said:
Bone Ur wrote:

Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"
I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg
No "Bones" about that! <groan>

You're not going to get away Scotty free for *that* one.

You guys S-Uhura are funny.
 
B

Bone Ur

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:27:41 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:
rf said:
Jonathan N. Little said:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Bone Ur wrote:

Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"
I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg

No "Bones" about that! <groan>

You're not going to get away Scotty free for *that* one.

You guys S-Uhura are funny.

Well, rf has an advantage. Australians are naturally spacey.

Btw, do you stutter?
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Steven Saunderson:
Sorry to butt in (like a goat) here but I think parentheses is
correct. I don't think "round brackets" is right.

() - parentheses
[] - brackets
{} - braces
<> - angle brackets

Those are the normal words used in international English, therefore
correct in international discussions - except for "angle brackets",
which aren't brackets, braces, or parentheses at all. They are just the
"less-than sign" and "greater-than sign", which are - among other
things - used _as_ delimiters in a bracket-like manner. Such use does
not _make_ them brackets, any more than using the letters "l" and "O" in
place of digits "1" and "0" on old typewriters _made_ them digits.

ObHTML: Thus, the tag delimiters "<" and ">" are properly called
"less-than sign" and "greater-than sign", which are the normative
Unicode names for the characters. Of course, these names do not describe
the _meaning_ of those characters in this context.
 
S

Steven Saunderson

Before correcting someone, one should ensure that one is not like
a crazy naturalist who objects to God if he sees things in nature
that do not accord to his rigid classifications.

Fair enough, but I've never heard of "round brackets" so I honestly
thought you were wrong here. After the responses here and checking the
wiki article it seems that my terminology is more American than English
which surprised me. I used to work for an American computer company so
maybe I picked up more than I realised.

I wonder what they teach in Aussie schools nowadays.
 
R

rf

Bone Ur said:
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:27:41
GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:
rf said:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Bone Ur wrote:

Jonathan N. Little scribed:
[Beauregard wrote:]
What will your script do when it encounters my browser UA string:

Borgzilla/31.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
Well, if it's well-written, it will just "Kling-on"...
Is this just a silly "phas-er" what? Bad case of Trekiosis...
It's that Beauregard. He's in "Kirks-mode"
I should be. I *always* use a proper doctype.

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/doctype.jpg

No "Bones" about that! <groan>

You're not going to get away Scotty free for *that* one.

You guys S-Uhura are funny.

Well, rf has an advantage. Australians are naturally spacey.

Yes but just look at the can of wormholes we have opened.
 
D

Dylan Parry

Jukka said:
except for "angle brackets", which aren't brackets, braces, or
parentheses at all. They are just the "less-than sign" and
"greater-than sign", which are - among other things - used _as_
delimiters in a bracket-like manner. Such use does not _make_ them
brackets, any more than using the letters "l" and "O" in place of
digits "1" and "0" on old typewriters _made_ them digits.

Indeed. A true representation of angle brackets would have taller
characters that are also narrower than the less-than and greater-than
signs. They would look more similar to parentheses.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brackets.svg which shows angle
brackets as the fourth type of bracket in the image.

As Jukka points out, the less-than and greater-than signs are simply
used because they are on the keyboard, and most people wouldn't know the
difference or if indeed how to get a true angle bracket. It's a similar
problem to the use of the hyphen-minus as an all-purpose dash.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

rf said:
Yes but just look at the can of wormholes we have opened.

Yes, I apologise for opening this can of wormholes. Heck, all I did was
sulu forth and post my user agent string...
 

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
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top