On Tue, April 17, 2007 9:28 am, Tim wrote:
>> > That was my assumption when I first read it...
>> >
>> > But maybe I've just hung out with too many stoner musicians... :-v
>> >
>
> Just musicians? ;P
In my personal experience, yes, just musicians...
I know a LOT of musicians, though, so it's a sk
27;tedd';
php-general@lists.php.net
Objet : Re: [PHP] WWE in Stamford, CT needs a kick ass PHP Developer!
Richard Lynch wrote:
On Fri, April 13, 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
peacepipe in one hand, broadsword in the other - lets hack on :-)
***BIG SMILE***
And WHAT are you smiling at???
Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Fri, April 13, 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
peacepipe in one hand, broadsword in the other - lets hack on :-)
>>> ***BIG SMILE***
>> And WHAT are you smiling at??? Staves beat peacepipes and broadswords
>> anyday!
>
> Maybe he's smiling because of what's IN h
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Jochem Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : mardi 17 avril 2007 16:19
> À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc : Robert Cummings; Tim; 'Jarrel Cobb'; 'tedd';
> php-general@lists.php.net
> Objet : Re: [PHP] WWE
On Fri, April 13, 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> > peacepipe in one hand, broadsword in the other - lets hack on :-)
>>
>> ***BIG SMILE***
>
> And WHAT are you smiling at??? Staves beat peacepipes and broadswords
> anyday!
Maybe he's smiling because of what's IN his peacepipe... :-)
That
On Sat, April 14, 2007 9:35 am, tedd wrote:
> For example, we all use pint_r() to show us what values our variables
> hold -- it helps in debugging. The same goes for css, try using the
> rule "border: 1px solid red;" the next time you're wondering about
> why something isn't placed where you want
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 08:23 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 3:27 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > > >Statistics are easy to find:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-281187/tm.htm#281187
> > >
> > > Okay, so read them.
> >
> >I did just before I posted the link :)
>
At 3:27 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >Statistics are easy to find:
> >
> > http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-281187/tm.htm#281187
>
> Okay, so read them.
I did just before I posted the link :)
> In the first post you'll find (from my old college CSUN) this:
>
> http
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 14:58 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 2:25 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >A stretchy website stretches it's content area to accomodate the width
> >of the browser. I'm quite sure you knew this, either that, or you're not
> >reading enough.
>
> Is my site an example of a
At 2:25 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
A stretchy website stretches it's content area to accomodate the width
of the browser. I'm quite sure you knew this, either that, or you're not
reading enough.
Is my site an example of a stretchy website? It's only two columns,
but it could have
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 14:19 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 12:37 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >but truth be told, the web is still
> >evolving into what visionaries see for its potential.
>
> Agreed, but some are reluctant to listen to visionaries. :-)
Not all visionaries talk. Many just d
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 14:16 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 11:37 AM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >Sure, but designers head the beck and call of paying customers. Just
> >like we coders do. Sometime you just can't win the argument with a
> >suit :)
>
> I didn't know you wore a suit. :-)
>
> -
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 13:57 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 11:12 AM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > At 9:07 PM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > >I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout.
>
> >Who said pixel perfect image?
>
> You did -- pixel perfect image or pixel perfect
At 12:37 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
but truth be told, the web is still
evolving into what visionaries see for its potential.
Agreed, but some are reluctant to listen to visionaries. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.co
At 11:37 AM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Sure, but designers head the beck and call of paying customers. Just
like we coders do. Sometime you just can't win the argument with a
suit :)
I didn't know you wore a suit. :-)
---
BTW, why can't a browser window be pixel perfect?
What's
At 11:12 AM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> At 9:07 PM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout.
Who said pixel perfect image?
You did -- pixel perfect image or pixel perfect layout, what's the difference?
Now make pixel perfect stre
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 11:28 -0500, Edward Vermillion wrote:
>
> I think there's a fundamental difference between a web application
> and a web page. (That's another one of those areas where folks expect
> what they shouldn't. Like a web application must adhere to the web
> paradigm and ensure
On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 10:14 -0500, Edward Vermillion wrote:
On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
[snip]
I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. Probably why you
haven't had to tear at your face very hard with CSS
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 10:14 -0500, Edward Vermillion wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. Probably why you
> > haven't had to tear at your face very hard with CSS :) That whole
> > box-model issue becomes
On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
[snip]
I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. Probably why you
haven't had to tear at your face very hard with CSS :) That whole
box-model issue becomes a great deal more elastic when you have some
fudge room.
[snip]
I use my
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 10:35 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 9:07 PM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. Probably why you
> >haven't had to tear at your face very hard with CSS :) That whole
> >box-model issue becomes a great deal more elastic when you
At 9:07 PM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. Probably why you
haven't had to tear at your face very hard with CSS :) That whole
box-model issue becomes a great deal more elastic when you have some
fudge room.
Rob:
My site (http://sperling.c
Stut wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> On Fri, April 13, 2007 1:20 am, Stut wrote:
>>> tedd wrote:
this
ain't the bad old days.
>>> That's debatable!
>>
>> Damnit!
>>
>> Now I've got that "These are the good ol' days" song stuck in my head,
>> and it's your fault!
>>
>> :-)
>
> Hey, d
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 16:05 +0200, Tim wrote:
> CSS is young, it will mature in time, meanwhile to each his own layout
> manner.
>
> I see what you are saying Rob, (yes the BUT) BUT table are "orginally" for
> formatting data in a litteral manner and css is for "layout".
I'm sure by "formatting"
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:24 -0400, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> Nice observation.
It was a timely cheapshot :)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:16 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 3:17 AM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >Dear Tedd,
> >
> >Please put me down for one pint of asshole, because while you sit on
> >that glass pedestal of CSS superiority I can't help but notice how
> >http://ancientstones.com/ looks comple
x27;; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Objet : Re: [PHP] WWE in Stamford, CT needs a kick ass PHP Developer!
> >
> > Tim wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Oh and guys, since when is their ONE good way of doing
> > th
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:30 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 8:39 PM -0400 4/12/07, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> > If you're striving to be the best front end developer you can be
> >then yes, by all means, use pure CSS for layout and never use tools
> >like DW but thats not everyone's goal.
>
> Fair enough.
>
Richard Lynch wrote:
On Fri, April 13, 2007 1:20 am, Stut wrote:
tedd wrote:
this
ain't the bad old days.
That's debatable!
Damnit!
Now I've got that "These are the good ol' days" song stuck in my head,
and it's your fault!
:-)
Hey, don't forget that you should always look on the bright
On Fri, April 13, 2007 1:24 am, Stut wrote:
> tedd wrote:
>> At 7:41 PM +0100 4/12/07, Stut wrote:
>>> Yes you'll need to put in a bit more work, but the result will be
>>> that
>>> much better.
>>>
>>> -Stut
>>
>> Sorry Stut -- I know you know this, but it's more work to NOT use
>> css.
>
> Not wh
On Fri, April 13, 2007 1:20 am, Stut wrote:
> tedd wrote:
>> this
>> ain't the bad old days.
>
> That's debatable!
Damnit!
Now I've got that "These are the good ol' days" song stuck in my head,
and it's your fault!
:-)
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy
> -Message d'origine-
> De : tedd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : vendredi 13 avril 2007 16:37
> À : Tim; 'Jarrel Cobb'; 'Robert Cummings'
> Cc : 'tedd'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Jochem Maas'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet
At 4:05 PM +0200 4/13/07, Tim wrote:
The only
thing i regret here is the violence some of these posts take :) Isn't the
world full of it already? Can't we tone it down in here where their is some
resemblance of peace? ;)
Tim
Tim:
Don't worry about it. This manner is common for this list -- j
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Jochem Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : vendredi 13 avril 2007 16:32
> À : Tim
> Cc : 'Jarrel Cobb'; 'Robert Cummings'; 'tedd'; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: [PHP] WWE
Tim wrote:
...
>
> Oh and guys, since when is their ONE good way of doing things??? The only
> thing i regret here is the violence some of these posts take :) Isn't the
> world full of it already? Can't we tone it down in here where their is some
> resemblance of peace? ;)
oh, the world is defi
At 8:39 PM -0400 4/12/07, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
If you're striving to be the best front end developer you can be
then yes, by all means, use pure CSS for layout and never use tools
like DW but thats not everyone's goal.
Fair enough.
My complaint here is not what anyone chooses to do/use but rat
At 3:17 AM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Dear Tedd,
Please put me down for one pint of asshole, because while you sit on
that glass pedestal of CSS superiority I can't help but notice how
http://ancientstones.com/ looks completely fucked up in Opera. Opera I
might add is ACID2 compliant.
#x27;t we tone it down in here where their is some
resemblance of peace? ;)
Regards,
Tim
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Jarrel Cobb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : vendredi 13 avril 2007 15:24
> À : Robert Cummings
> Cc : tedd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jochem Maas; [EMAI
Nice observation.
On 4/13/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Tedd,
Please put me down for one pint of asshole, because while you sit on
that glass pedestal of CSS superiority I can't help but notice how
http://ancientstones.com/ looks completely fucked up in Opera. Opera I
mig
Dear Tedd,
Please put me down for one pint of asshole, because while you sit on
that glass pedestal of CSS superiority I can't help but notice how
http://ancientstones.com/ looks completely fucked up in Opera. Opera I
might add is ACID2 compliant. Now please go shove your "better than thou
CSS up
tedd wrote:
At 7:41 PM +0100 4/12/07, Stut wrote:
Yes you'll need to put in a bit more work, but the result will be that
much better.
-Stut
Sorry Stut -- I know you know this, but it's more work to NOT use css.
Not when you have a pre-made table-based layout already.
-Stut
--
PHP General
tedd wrote:
this
ain't the bad old days.
That's debatable!
-Stut
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I've been atleast attempting to use CSS for partial layout for 6 or so years
so yes..I know CSS is not new. That was not my point. My point was that
CSS hasn't been a real viable means for layout (not pure CSS anyway) until
relatively recently. Most sites until recently used tables for layout
b
At 6:25 PM -0500 4/12/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
I believe the OP was saying that in the bad ol' days before CSS, DW
could get you "closer" with nested table layouts faster than endless
tweaking and re-loading, so DW was a useful tool for that reason in
the past.
The OP posted this week and asked
At 6:31 PM -0500 4/12/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Thu, April 12, 2007 1:34 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
... It's too bad, I love CSS, it
makes for really clean markup, but using it completely in place of
tables just isn't feasible right now without resorting to CSS
"tricks".
And using tricks
At 7:41 PM +0100 4/12/07, Stut wrote:
Yes you'll need to put in a bit more work, but the result will be
that much better.
-Stut
Sorry Stut -- I know you know this, but it's more work to NOT use css.
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.c
At 2:11 PM -0400 4/12/07, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
First, CSS layout is relatively new thing.
New? New to you perhaps, but certainly not "new"! CSS2 was released
almost ten years ago -- that's a lifetime in web years.
Its been possible for a while
but bad browser support for CSS made it difficult
On Thu, April 12, 2007 1:34 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> ... It's too bad, I love CSS, it
> makes for really clean markup, but using it completely in place of
> tables just isn't feasible right now without resorting to CSS
> "tricks".
> And using tricks is just as much against the spirit of CSS as
I believe the OP was saying that in the bad ol' days before CSS, DW
could get you "closer" with nested table layouts faster than endless
tweaking and re-loading, so DW was a useful tool for that reason in
the past.
On Thu, April 12, 2007 8:39 am, tedd wrote:
> At 9:14 PM -0400 4/11/07, Jarrel Cobb
Jarrel Cobb wrote:
Dreamweaver
came/comes in handy when you are forced to work with a nested table layout
because you're
working with HTML generated by Photoshop.
I hear this argument used a lot. Just because you get a design that has
been generated in Photoshop is no excuse for not conformin
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:11 -0400, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> First, CSS layout is relatively new thing. Its been possible for a while
> but bad browser support for CSS made it difficult.
Microsoft is the bane of any standard. Even with IE7 they still haven't
opened up many of the important CSS feature
First, CSS layout is relatively new thing. Its been possible for a while
but bad browser support for CSS made it difficult. I didn't imply that
people should use a nested table layout and I clearly statement that now a
days most people go for CSS layouts. I was simply saying that Dreamweaver
ca
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 10:09 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
> Thanks for the insight Tedd. It's good to get real feedback (unlike
> some of these guys busting my stones here - lol).
Someone with big stones wouldn't complain! Maybe you need thicker
skin ;)
(scrotum pun intended)
Cheers,
Rob.
> I
Thanks for the insight Tedd. It's good to get real feedback (unlike
some of these guys busting my stones here - lol). I can take the blame
on putting that Dreamweaver component in there, not our Development
team. Gotta remember a lot of times you are dealing with a job spec
developed from HR and
At 9:14 PM -0400 4/11/07, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
You have to save the HTML file to see the changes with a browser refresh.
You can use the design view to make sure you are atleast in the ballpark
before saving and using the IE/Firefox preview. I know most people go with
CSS layout now a days, but th
[snip]
agreed, Dreamweaver is not the tool for you. But I've found it to be
useful
for whipping up quick HTML newsletters from slice photoshop layouts.
And I
like to see incremental change so if I used the browser refresh
technique
trying to tweak the crappy table layouts photoshop spits out, I'd
On Wed, April 11, 2007 7:59 pm, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> There is a code view in Dreamweaver. The split view is useful for
> making
> handcoded changes to HTML in the top code view and seeing the
> immediate
> result in the bottom design view. You dont have to use the WYSIWYG
> features.
If I'm onl
agreed, Dreamweaver is not the tool for you. But I've found it to be useful
for whipping up quick HTML newsletters from slice photoshop layouts. And I
like to see incremental change so if I used the browser refresh technique
trying to tweak the crappy table layouts photoshop spits out, I'd be
pr
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 03:24 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 21:14 -0400, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> >> You have to save the HTML file to see the changes with a browser refresh.
> >> You can use the design view to make sure you are atleast in the ballpark
> >>
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 21:14 -0400, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
>> You have to save the HTML file to see the changes with a browser refresh.
>> You can use the design view to make sure you are atleast in the ballpark
>> before saving and using the IE/Firefox preview. I know most peo
Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> There is a code view in Dreamweaver. The split view is useful for making
> handcoded changes to HTML in the top code view and seeing the immediate
> result in the bottom design view. You dont have to use the WYSIWYG
> features.
>
ye
I'm glad to say my position
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 21:14 -0400, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> You have to save the HTML file to see the changes with a browser refresh.
> You can use the design view to make sure you are atleast in the ballpark
> before saving and using the IE/Firefox preview. I know most people go with
> CSS layout now
You have to save the HTML file to see the changes with a browser refresh.
You can use the design view to make sure you are atleast in the ballpark
before saving and using the IE/Firefox preview. I know most people go with
CSS layout now a days, but this was insanely useful for complicated table
l
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:59 -0400, Jarrel Cobb wrote:
> There is a code view in Dreamweaver. The split view is useful for
> making handcoded changes to HTML in the top code view and seeing the
> immediate result in the bottom design view. You dont have to use the
> WYSIWYG features.
I see chan
There is a code view in Dreamweaver. The split view is useful for making
handcoded changes to HTML in the top code view and seeing the immediate
result in the bottom design view. You dont have to use the WYSIWYG
features.
On 4/11/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, April 11,
On Wed, April 11, 2007 6:00 pm, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:53 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:43 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
Other skills:
* Dreamweaver
>>> *ROFLMFAO*
>>
>> Still *ROFLMFAO*
>
> I don't see what'
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Cummings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jay Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jochem Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:05 AM
Subject: RE: [PHP] WWE in Stamford, CT needs a kick a
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:03 -0500, Jay Blanchard wrote:
> [snip]
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:53 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:43 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
> >>> Other skills:
> >>>
> >>> * Dreamweaver
> >> *ROFLMFAO*
> >
> > Still *ROFLMF
[snip]
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:53 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:43 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
>>> Other skills:
>>>
>>> * Dreamweaver
>> *ROFLMFAO*
>
> Still *ROFLMFAO*
I don't see what's so funny. there is great skill involved
with becomin
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:53 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:43 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
>>> Other skills:
>>>
>>> * Dreamweaver
>> *ROFLMFAO*
>
> Still *ROFLMFAO*
I don't see what's so funny. there is great skill involved
with becoming profi
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:53 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:43 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
> >
> > Other skills:
> >
> > * Dreamweaver
>
> *ROFLMFAO*
Still *ROFLMFAO*
Cheers,
Rob.
--
..
| InterJinn Applicatio
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:43 -0400, Arbitrio, Pat wrote:
>
> Other skills:
>
> * Dreamweaver
*ROFLMFAO*
Cheers,
Rob.
--
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
:
You folks know anyone who fits this one?
Description:
Your task would be the maintenance and extension of our dynamic and
cutting edge Intranet and Internet web sites written in PHP5.
PHP/Mysql Experience: 3-4 years, where 1 year must be PHP5.
Candidates must be well versed in:
* PHP5
73 matches
Mail list logo
