Archive for August, 2002

image/svg+xml

Friday, August 30th, 2002

SVG 1.1 says the mime-type for SVG is image/svg+xml, it’s not been registered of course, but that’s not surprising these days. RFC 3023 says that the +xml suffix means generic UA’s can parse the content, however this isn’t true for image/svg+xml, as it might be gzipped. I raised the issue on the mailing list.

image/svg+xml

Friday, August 30th, 2002

SVG 1.1 says the mime-type for SVG is image/svg+xml, it’s not been registered of course, but that’s not surprising these days. RFC 3023 says that the +xml suffix means generic UA’s can parse the content, however this isn’t true for image/svg+xml, as it might be gzipped. I raised the issue on the mailing list.

Position fixed…

Friday, August 30th, 2002

Another position fixed for IE unfortunately this one uses setInterval(..,0) so we’d better hope no browser comes along that actually implements that.

Bellybuttons and creationism

Friday, August 30th, 2002

Did Adam have a Bellybutton - the article seems to say not, because “God wouldn’t want or need to create the appearance of a false history”. I don’t really understand this, surely creationism relies on the fact that God does create false histories - Dinosaurs, Cosmology etc. etc. Creationists are a weird bunch.

300 years of Cricket!

Thursday, August 29th, 2002

The Prandial Post informs me that Goodwood is celebrating 300 years of cricket by playing a game to 1727 rules - I’m sure back in 1727 we could’ve beaten the Indians…

That reminds me, I really must sort out flights to the Cricket World Cup

Smaller Pictures

Thursday, August 29th, 2002

Kevan Davis has some nice javascript picture thingies which animate, unfortunately he’s using images which are very risky as if they’re not cached it can completely screw it up. He could do it all in CSS much safer!

Are there really lots of people on the internet

Thursday, August 29th, 2002

You see all sorts of stats of how there are millions of people using the internet, and thousands blogging etc. If that’s so, why is the world so small, Rogi is an interesting character so I read his blog, he links to some bloke called Ben, so I had a little look at his pages, where he spends his time talking about RDF, and Morbus Iff, and lots of other Semantic Web peeps who I “talk” to all the time. 6 degrees of seperation, I reckon we can do it all 2… Of course codepiction is a more interesting look at 6 degrees theories.

Are there really lots of people on the internet

Thursday, August 29th, 2002

You see all sorts of stats of how there are millions of people using the internet, and thousands blogging etc. If that’s so, why is the world so small, Rogi is an interesting character so I read his blog, he links to some bloke called Ben, so I had a little look at his pages, where he spends his time talking about RDF, and Morbus Iff, and lots of other Semantic Web peeps who I “talk” to all the time. 6 degrees of seperation, I reckon we can do it all 2… Of course codepiction is a more interesting look at 6 degrees theories.

Anti PageRank Rant

Thursday, August 29th, 2002

After fighting past the script errors, and the horrible layout I found this link to article on PageRank(I won’t link direct, google will just hide it anyway.). The general idea seems to be that PageRank is evil because only big sites will have a high page rank, therefore there’s no way in for the low-ranked site. What they fail to note is that the current high-ranked sites are not all in the hands of corporations now, so it’s just as easy for me to get a new site high-ranked as anyone else who’s already got a ranking.

Yes, it may favour those already with a presence, or known by someone with a presence, but that’s just about anyone.

The article also notes “Sites with a respectable PageRank, on the other hand, get tens of thousands of visitors per day.” - I don’t agree with that, Page rank is quite independant of hits, I know of some 7 ranked pages which hardly ever see anyone but the GoogleBot, PageRank alone doens’t drive visitors, content does.

All in all, an odd article, especially when all the current content-analysis offerings are so far below page rank in finding relevant content.

Dogbomb

Thursday, August 29th, 2002

So manic tells me dogbomb.co.uk is no more, and it seems that’s because the author can no longer afford the bandwidth, he’s been appealing for cash to pay for it due to the number of hits. If he’d bothered to go read Mark Nottingham’s Cache tutorial he could’ve saved himself huge amounts in bandwidth. I realise a blog updates daily, so the front page has to be pretty uncacheable, but the archive is completely static, so should be completely cacheable, and even the front page could have a 5 or 10 minute cache age, which would help the seriously high bandwidth site.