Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'eegg'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Why not XHTML5?

  - by eegg

  So, HTML5 is the Big Step Forward, I'm told. The last step forward we took that I'm aware of was the introduction of XHTML. The advantages were obvious: simplicity, strictness, the ability to use standard XML parsers and generators to work with web pages, and so on. How strange and frustrating, then, that HTML5 rolls all that back: once again we're working with a non-standard syntax; once again, we have to deal with historical baggage and parsing complexity; once again we can't use our standard XML libraries, parsers, generators, or transformers; and all the advantages introduced by XML (extensibility, namespaces, standardization, and so on), that the W3C spent a decade pushing for good reasons, are lost. Fine, we have XHTML5, but it seems like it has not gained popularity like the HTML5 encoding has. See this SO question, for example. Even the HTML5 specification says that HTML5, not XHTML5, "is the format suggested for most authors." Do I have my facts wrong? Otherwise, why am I the only one that feels this way? Why are people choosing HTML5 over XHTML5?

  Read the article

• Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there)

  - by eegg

  I have a specific set of binaries installed at: ~/.GutenMark/binary/<binaries...> These were previously working correctly, but for seemingly no reason when I attempt to execute them the shell claims not to find them: james@anubis:~/.GutenMark/binary$ ls -al ... -rwxr-xr-x 1 james james 2979036 2009-05-10 13:34 GUItenMark ... -rwxrwxrwx 1 james james 76952 2009-05-10 13:34 GutenMark ... -rwxr-xr-x 1 james james 10156 2009-05-10 13:34 GutenSplit ... james@anubis:~/.GutenMark/binary$ ./GutenMark bash: ./GutenMark: No such file or directory james@anubis:~/.GutenMark/binary$ I've tried to isolate the cause of this, with no success. The same happens with zsh, bash, and sh (all giving their appropriate "file not found" error -- this is definitely not a strange output from the binary itself). The same happens either as user james or as root. Nor is it directory specific; if I move the whole directory installation, or just a single binary, to anywhere else, the same happens when attempting to execute it. The same even happens when I put the directory in $PATH and just execute "GutenMark". It also happens when I execute it from a script (I've tried Python's commands module -- though this appears to just call sh). The problem appears to be specific to the binaries themselves, yet they appear to never actually get executed. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure

  - by eegg

  At work, I'm in charge of maintaining the organization of a whole lot of varied data on a standard file-system. Part of this is coming up with sensible classification (by similarity, need, read/write access, etc), but the bigger part is actually documenting it: what documents/files/media should go where, what should not be in this directory, "for something slightly different, see ../../other-dir", etc. At the moment, I've documented this using a plaintext file filing.txt in every directory I want to document. If someone is unsure what's meant to be in any directory, they read that file. This works alright, but it seems odd that I have this primitive custom solution to a problem that any maintainer of a non-trivial directory structure must experience. Every company I've known of, for example, has some kind of shared file-system where agreed terminology for categorization is important. In my experience, people just have to learn what's what by trial-and-error and experimentation. So allow me to propose a better solution, and hopefully you can tell me if it exists. Any directory on any filesystem can have a hidden plaintext file named .filing. Its contents are descriptive human language. It uses some markup like Markdown, with little more than bold, italic, and (relative) hyperlinks to other directories. Now a suitably-enabled file browser will check for a file named .filing whenever it displays a directory. If it exists, its contents are parsed and displayed in an unobtrusive pane near the directory-path widget. Any links therein can be clicked, and the user will be taken to the target directory of that link. I think that the effort of implementing such a standard would pay back many times over in usability gains. We would have, say, plugins for Nautilus, Konqueror, etc.. It could be used to display directory information in the standard file lists served by webservers. And so on. So, question: does such a thing exist? If not, why not? Do people think it's a worthwhile idea?

  Read the article

• Ruby Irb reacts strangely to control keys

  - by eegg

  Hi. I'm (extremely) new to Ruby, having started today. I just moved from my system's Ruby 1.8 installation to Ruby 1.9, compiled from source. In doing so, irb has taken a turn for the worse. It reacts in a most unfriendly way to the non-alphanumeric control keys: UP key prints: ^[[A DOWN key prints: ^[[B DELETE key prints: ^[[3~ ...and so on. The main result of this for me is that I have no access to previously issued commands. Nor does tab-completion work; though none of this seems to be an issue with Wirble - the same happens when I remove my ~/.irbrc. I'm using: Ubuntu 9.10 GNOME Terminal 2.28.1 ruby 1.9.1p376 (2009-12-07 revision 26041) [i686-linux] Irb version 0.9.5 (05/04/13) Any ideas? :(

  Read the article

1