Master list of "issues" exist anywhere?

K

Kabuki Armadillo

I'm a low-level web page author. I sometimes run into layout issues and run
off to Google to find a solution but it's such a haphazard approach.
Different people have different solutions and I suspect that sometimes I'm
choosing a less efficient solution.

Or, I'm about to try a new layout, unaware that somebody has already
discovered some obscure issues with IE ## which will cause it to render with
some maddening 3-px gap, or the float will mis-behave under these
circumstances, or the DOCTYPE will cause a different result, this solution
will only work on the Macs version of this broswer and on and on and on . .
..

Does anyone know of a really good website that documents all of these
niggling little frustrations into one easily searchable database, preferably
with solutions to each, or links to solutions? Over the years, I've been
putting together my own little database of issues and solutions as I find
them but maybe I'm just re-inventing the wheel or somebody has done a more
thorough job of it.

M
 
D

dorayme

"Kabuki Armadillo said:
I'm a low-level web page author. I sometimes run into layout issues and run
off to Google to find a solution but it's such a haphazard approach.
Different people have different solutions and I suspect that sometimes I'm
choosing a less efficient solution.

Or, I'm about to try a new layout, unaware that somebody has already
discovered some obscure issues with IE ## which will cause it to render with
some maddening 3-px gap, or the float will mis-behave under these
circumstances, or the DOCTYPE will cause a different result, this solution
will only work on the Macs version of this broswer and on and on and on . .
.

Does anyone know of a really good website that documents all of these
niggling little frustrations into one easily searchable database, preferably
with solutions to each, or links to solutions? Over the years, I've been
putting together my own little database of issues and solutions as I find
them but maybe I'm just re-inventing the wheel or somebody has done a more
thorough job of it.

M

There are too many issues for a really comprehensive data base to be
useful. It would be too big!

You might know of:

<http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html>

<http://www.communitymx.com/abstract.cfm?cid=47F29>

If you come across an issue you cannot quickly resolve, come on over
here, many experienced folk would be willing to help you (as long as you
allow them to beat you a little bit with a rolled up newspaper from time
to time)
 
A

Adrienne Boswell

DOCTYPE will cause a different result

The way to prevent that is to use a strict doctype all the time. Validate
the markup and the CSS all the time, and you will at least have one less
thing to worry about.
 
T

Travis Newbury

There are too many issues for a really comprehensive data base to be
useful. It would be too big!

Oh doo doo. "too big" is not an issue with databases. Look at
Google. The problem is not that it is too big, but rather no one has
found a monetary reason to build such a database. As soon as someone
believes they can make money from such a database, it will be built.
 
D

dorayme

Travis Newbury said:
Oh doo doo. "too big" is not an issue with databases. Look at
Google. The problem is not that it is too big, but rather no one has
found a monetary reason to build such a database. As soon as someone
believes they can make money from such a database, it will be built.

It is an almost iron-clad law that no matter what anyone says on usenet,
someone will misunderstand it. Let me explain it this way. Suppose there
was no problem at all genetically engineering big dogs. They could be as
big as you want. No problem in making them and they would be dogs and
very big and they would woof (frighteningly loudly) and eat (never mind
a bone, how about a mob of sheep) at one sitting. You would take a
wheel-barrow or even hire a dump truck and driver to pick up their poo
on your walks in the local park. But they would not be useful pets in
the average earthling home. Are you starting to get my meaning?
 
T

Travis Newbury

...But they would not be useful pets in
the average earthling home. Are you starting to get my meaning?

If someone can figure out how to make money with such a dog, it will
be built. It's called Capitalism.
 
T

Travis Newbury

You are just fixated! Are you in a sort of Republican catatonic daze
after the election of Obama?

Why do you say that? I am all about Obama when it comes to social
issues (abortion, gay marriage etc...) but Capitalism promotes growth,
Socialism stifles it. I choose capitalism every time. It the
Republicans would drop their insane need to control a woman's body,
and stopped caring who married who, they would win every election.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Travis said:
Oh doo doo. "too big" is not an issue with databases. Look at
Google. The problem is not that it is too big, but rather no one has
found a monetary reason to build such a database. As soon as someone
believes they can make money from such a database, it will be built.

True but too big may also be a reason for this Sisyphean task as MS
keeps adding to the list with each release of their "web" browser! ;-)
 
A

Adrienne Boswell

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Travis Newbury
If someone can figure out how to make money with such a dog, it will
be built. It's called Capitalism.

No, it's called Clifford the Big Red Dog, and it's one of Spane's
favorite PBS characters.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

Why do you say that? I am all about Obama when it comes to social
issues (abortion, gay marriage etc...) but Capitalism promotes growth,
Socialism stifles it.  I choose capitalism every time.   It the
Republicans would drop their insane need to control a woman's body,
and stopped caring who married who, they would win every election.

Usually I'd avoid any political comment, but I have to point out that
Obama has stated that he believes that a marriage is between a man and
a woman (most recently stated as a result of the Miss California
debacle). So fundamentally, Obama does not support gay marriage.

On another note regarding the Liberal platform, does anyone else see
the hypocrisy in supporting abortion (thereby terminating an innocent
fetus), but denouncing the death penalty (thereby punishing a felon
convicted of a capital crime)? That's always kind of amused me. :)
 
N

Neredbojias

Usually I'd avoid any political comment, but I have to point out that
Obama has stated that he believes that a marriage is between a man
and a woman (most recently stated as a result of the Miss California
debacle). So fundamentally, Obama does not support gay marriage.

On another note regarding the Liberal platform, does anyone else see
the hypocrisy in supporting abortion (thereby terminating an innocent
fetus), but denouncing the death penalty (thereby punishing a felon
convicted of a capital crime)? That's always kind of amused me. :)

All these political comments may be more or less accurate, but I can
tell you one thing from first-hand experience. As a working man over a
span of 40 years or so, my financial well-being and standard-of-living
has been _much_ better in result of a Democratic administration as
opposed to a Republican one. Sometimes there's been a little lag from
the previous administration, but the data supports this conclusion
incontrovertibly.

So, Republicans may be tagged "capitalists" and Democratics
"socialists" but it all boils down to the fact that Republicans support
the monied in an elitest fashion and Democrats at least give a passing
thought or 2 to us peons. If you work for a living, you must be crazy
(and I daresay stupid) to vote Republican.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

All these political comments may be more or less accurate, but I can
tell you one thing from first-hand experience.  As a working man over a
span of 40 years or so, my financial well-being and standard-of-living
has been _much_ better in result of a Democratic administration as
opposed to a Republican one.  Sometimes there's been a little lag from
the previous administration, but the data supports this conclusion
incontrovertibly.

Strange, because my experience has been marginally the opposite. Of
course, the fact that neither party has held power for more than 8
years at a time for decades (excepting Reagan-Reagan-Bush41), and has
been largely checked by Congress, balances things out somewhat, too.
So, Republicans may be tagged "capitalists" and Democratics
"socialists" but it all boils down to the fact that Republicans support
the monied in an elitest fashion and Democrats at least give a passing
thought or 2 to us peons.  If you work for a living, you must be crazy
(and I daresay stupid) to vote Republican.

I don't think any adminstration of either major party has been so
blatantly clear in its direction as this one appears to be heading
(both Executive branch and Legislative branch), so I don't think your
classifications hold much water historically. Time will tell if your
observations are accurate, because we are certainly moving toward a
socialistic society. I HOPE you're right, for all our sakes, but I
SUSPECT you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.
 
D

dorayme

[QUOTE="Ed Mullen said:
Why do you say that? I am all about Obama when it comes to social
issues (abortion, gay marriage etc...) but Capitalism promotes growth,
Socialism stifles it. I choose capitalism every time. It the
Republicans would drop their insane need to control a woman's body,
and stopped caring who married who, they would win every election.

I gotta write that one down![/QUOTE]

Write down too

1. The trickle down economy theory is too fair to too few and too unfair
to too many for too long a period of time.

2. The Republicans would no more have won the last election than the
Catholics would be right that there is a god if they both dropped their
opposition to abortion.
 
D

dorayme

Kevin Scholl said:
Usually I'd avoid any political comment, but I have to point out that
Obama has stated that he believes that a marriage is between a man and
a woman (most recently stated as a result of the Miss California
debacle). So fundamentally, Obama does not support gay marriage.
Obama has also made it clear that he believes in a god. But he does not
support making it illegal not to.
On another note regarding the Liberal platform, does anyone else see
the hypocrisy in supporting abortion (thereby terminating an innocent
fetus), but denouncing the death penalty (thereby punishing a felon
convicted of a capital crime)? That's always kind of amused me. :)

It would be hypocitical if foetuses were innocent. For them to be
innocent they need to be the sort of thing that could be innocent or
guilty. But they are not. So maybe not grin quite as wide.
 
N

nice.guy.nige

While the city slept, rf feverishly typed:
Scaring the shit out of recalcitrant tigers?

Too damned right! Those racalcitrant tigers have had it their way for too
long! Now, where can I get me one of those big dogs?

Cheers,
Nige
 
K

Kevin Scholl

Obama has also made it clear that he believes in a god. But he does not
support making it illegal not to.

Ummm, not quite sure what your point there is. You can fundamentally
believe something, but recognize that not everyone agrees. *I* believe
in God, but you apparently do not. Those are choices that we each
make; we don't agree, but we recognize each other's right to our
belief.

Anyway, I was merely pointing out that Obama does not hold to the
stereotypical Liberal support of gay marriage, which Travis seemed to
imply in his message.
It would be hypocitical if foetuses were innocent. For them to be
innocent they need to be the sort of thing that could be innocent or
guilty. But they are not. So maybe not grin quite as wide.

A fetus is innocent, base dont he first definition of the word: "free
from moral wrong; without sin; pure". An unborn child has no
understanding of good versus evil. If aborted, a baby never has the
chance to learn or act on that distinction. Hence, a fetus is innocent.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

You may need to inform me of the details of this American case. Does his
belief amount to him thinking the state should not allow marriages
between same sex couples? I was supposing he was not keen on it and he
thought there was something religiously special about it but would not
oppose the state allowing a legal form of marriage where there could not
be (in his opinion) this extra religious specialness.


By the way or not, you cannot *choose to believe* anything. You either
do or you do not. It happens or it does not. It is not a voluntary
matter. One helplessly - in a way - believes or not.

You can choose to study the matter. You can choose to not study some
aspects of the matter. You can influence the probability of your
succumbing to a belief one way or the other, but you cannot choose to
believe.

Wha...? Of *course* you choose to believe things. One's beliefs are
ALL about choice: consider the options, evidence, and relevance, then
choose what you believe (or don't believe).
I am afraid your appeal to the dictionary cannot help here. A leaf on a
tree is also without sin. You need to challenge with argument that a
very young foetus is the *sort of thing* that it is sensible to say is
innocent in a greater sense than a leaf.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you're grasping at straws here. You choose one
part of the definition (the weakest, as it were of the three parts),
and ignore the most important aspect. A leaf has no moral substance.
Comparing a fetus with a leaf is apples and oranges as far as this
issue is concerned.
This aside, no argument against capital punishment is based on the
assumption of innocence of anyone so I am not sure why you find it
striking that an anti-capital punishment view should come from a person
who also happens to believe in the right for women to have abortions?

Simple logic. Think of the issue at its most basic level. By
supporting abortion but not the death penalty, one is essentially
saying it's okay to kill one human being, but not another. That is
hypocrisy in its finest form.

(FWIW, personally I don't think the government should have any place
in deciding for or against abortion. It IS a choice for the woman. I
don't agree with it, but it is neither my place nor the government's
to dictate the morality of abortion.)
Methinks your argument is something like: Here is a guilty person and
you won't allow him to be killed, here is an innocent person and you
allow him to be killed. But the comparison is based purely on you taking
a few features out of context.

What features would those be? I see nothing out of context whatsoever.
Agree to disagree.
 
W

William Gill

Kevin said:
Strange, because my experience has been marginally the opposite. Of
course, the fact that neither party has held power for more than 8
years at a time for decades (excepting Reagan-Reagan-Bush41), and has
been largely checked by Congress, balances things out somewhat, too.


I don't think any adminstration of either major party has been so
blatantly clear in its direction as this one appears to be heading
(both Executive branch and Legislative branch), so I don't think your
classifications hold much water historically. Time will tell if your
observations are accurate, because we are certainly moving toward a
socialistic society. I HOPE you're right, for all our sakes, but I
SUSPECT you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Basically we have a "modified" capitalist system, which means government
intervention, both good and bad. Just like there has never been a
"pure" socialist system. The result is a sort of ying and yang
political economical system. Conservatives (theoretically) promote the
creation of wealth (When companies prospers they create new jobs, the
resulting employment creates new markets.) (ying). Capitalism is not
zero sum, wealth is created, not redistributed. The common
misconception of "trickle down economics" is the result of the fact that
those who coined the phrase are opposed to the principle behind it.
Liberals believe in zero sum (wealth is not created, it is
redistributed, by business in one direction, and by government in the
other.) so they strive to take from the "monied" and give to the "peons"
(yang). Fortunately the "redistribute cycle" usually wanes before the
demise of the host. I hope this happens before too much of what creates
wealth is damaged beyond recovery.

This may be anecdotal, but thought I have worked for some "bad"
companies, I have never worked for an unemployed person. Usually "bad"
companies are weeded out by economic Darwinism (when people take their
business elsewhere, when good employees leave, and when reputable
companies stop doing business with them). That is not to say the
unemployed don't deserve our support (charity for lack of a better word)
but vilifying the successful will eventually produce some very
unpleasant unintended consequences.
 
W

William Gill

dorayme said:
Obama has also made it clear that he believes in a god. But he does not
support making it illegal not to.

I believe much of the argument is convoluted by personal perception (and
Judgmentalism) on how individuals express "love" or intimacy, and by the
distinction between a "marriage" and partnership. For purposes of
discussion let's try to leave those elements out. Consider for example
two people who have chosen to share their lives for whatever reason, say
two sisters (both biological sisters, and from a religious community).
They share domestic duties, and all the obligations of what we think of
as the nuclear family. Shouldn't they be able to share medical
benefits? Should one be excluded from any decisions when the other
nears death? Most would have no problem accepting their "rights."
However, if they weren't biological sisters, many would suddenly object.

On the other hand, "marriage" has both a religions and a historical
connotation, that some feel that does not apply to such domestic
arrangements. Throughout history government has inserted itself into
personal relationships, and religious matter (i.e. marriage) on the
pretext of a host of "societal" concerns. A historical examination
would reveal a good look at the evolution of gender equity, the need to
"protect" wives, children, etc. The result is the mish-mash of
historical, religious, and societal connotations that underly the word
"marriage" are interfering with our intrinsic sense of fairness.
 

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

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,904
Latest member
HealthyVisionsCBDPrice

Latest Threads

Top