gilini

7 ms·

31.
by gilini 14y ago
Exactly. Eventually everyone turned to feature testing and it became common sense in clj. comp.lang.javascript's FAQ on browser-sniffing: http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/detect-browser/
32.
by gilini 14y ago
That's exactly their point. They claim most measurement tools will give false results if your web server outputs the headers before processing the actual request data.
33.
by gilini 14y ago
I believe they're referring to using TTFB as a performance test, to measure how long took the server to process your request.
34.
by gilini 14y ago
I completely disagree with you. JS' prototypes may have been poorly designed, but once you understand it, there's no reason you shouldn't use it at its full capabilities. Now, I do have a lot against enforcing OO behavior in js. Aside from
35.
by gilini 14y ago
New versions do not need to be limited by old browsers. Why not build a mutable API? Your browser doesn't support canvas? Oh, too bad, but the Canvas module will just be undefined so you, the developer, can choose what to do with your user.
36.
by gilini 14y ago
1) I don't get it. Completely dropping support would not break the brand experience, but allowing use via a simpler experience would? 2) The hardware issue was addressed in 3. Also, I don't follow, what do you mean by "the costs of supporti
37.
by gilini 14y ago
AFAICT, jQuery is a general purpose library, not one meant to build bleeding edge web apps.
38.
by gilini 14y ago
1) Maybe it's a design problem, do you really have to provide the exact same experience to everyone? 2) As others have said, there are "free" (of course, there's a cost in setting up) alternatives. 3) Indeed, we bumped every iMac RAM here a
39.
by gilini 14y ago
What do you mean by "comprehensive enough"? Can't you read the code?
40.
by gilini 14y ago
That's so much BS. Like supporting old browsers is that hard/expensive. Everyone keeps saying that, but I have never ever seen numbers to back it up. Letting it all blow up in the user's face is not an option to me. And I do business with
41.
by gilini 14y ago
Well, the rationale behind it doesn't seem exactly new or extensive. Sounds doable.
42.
by gilini 14y ago
Hm, I think something's missing from the post... Oh, yes, proper attribution. I saw this months ago in a 2010 blog post: http://www.jukie.net/bart/blog/pimping-out-git-log It's the exact same alias, sans "--date=relative". The guy from ju
43.
by gilini 14y ago
The problem is not whether a validator spits several errors or not, HTML validators are tools designed to point out stuff that is not conforming to the specs. It's stuff that you should avoid, not that will necessarily break your applicatio
44.
by gilini 15y ago
Client-side detection in JavaScript or UA string aren't mutually exclusive, since the UA string is exposed on the DOM. Are suggesting they would rather guess the browser by inference through presence of DOM properties and methods? In the en
45.
by gilini 15y ago
Yes, I actually meant a marketable product.
46.
by gilini 15y ago
Also, sign me in, I've been wanting something like this for years.
47.
by gilini 15y ago
Well, if you think that this will be the first attempt ever to produce a portable HUD, I believe the impact this will have won't depend that much on its commercial success.
48.
by gilini 15y ago
I completely agree, and this is specially true when you're talking about highly heterogeneous environments, like user agents ;)
49.
by gilini 15y ago
I live in Brazil, and yes, not only I would but I do use a service like that: http://unblock-us.com/ No complaints whatsoever so far, I'm three months in. Since the only thing you have to change is your DNS settings, I can watch Netflix i