Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, this is one heck of a shirt!

Not much going on today. Just been reading my book on computer networks all afternoon. There's a really cool way to build a simple web server using Java that I read about today. Looks pretty interesting...

And another thing - the Fortress of Solitude, Rohan's journal, has returned. And it's back with a great new design, including switchable "themes." The link is under the list of blogs...check it out!

Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction Google thing? Well, here's another Google funny. As usual, head over to Google and, this time, type in "french military victories" (without the quotes). Then click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Woooo...I drove from Irvine to Fountain Valley today! Pretty sweet. My dad has guts to let me drive on the main roads when I've had the car in my hands for only 4 days. Hahah! So yes, next up - freeway driving!

Anyways, orientation pictures were uploaded to the UCLA site yesterday, and here's one picture in which I'm (barely) present. If you look closely at almost the end of the row of guys, you'll see just my head sticking out.


P.S. In case you didn't already realize, that is not, in fact, a real football game. LOL!

More pictures from our session can be found here on the UCLA Orientation website.

All this while, my dad has been kinda hesitant to take me driving on the road, so I was only driving within the apartment complex or in the parking lots in school. Yesterday was the first day I took the car on the roads. Drove all around for almost an hour with my dad sitting at the side. It was great! Just have to get some minor things perfect, and I should be set. Might be able to take the driving test in a week or two, and then I'll have my license!

Here's my final response to Steve's comment on the eternal Mozilla vs. IE battle.

I always find this discussion pretty interesting (although I've gone through it more than once before). But since it usually ends up going on forever, I'll rest my case with this post.

Posted by Steve

First, I would like to apologize for my rash statement denouncing W3C. Of course, it is very important to have standards, and I would hate to live in a world without them. However, I don't find it necessary or practical to follow W3C rules 110% (i.e. you must have the "alt" attribute in every image), because it doesn't really improve performance or efficiency, but takes away from productivity.

I agree that the "alt" attribute requirement seems too rigid and unnecessary. However, there is a reason it's part of the standards.

The aim of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is to ensure that the content of a website can be viewed by anyone on the internet. Now lets say you missed the "alt" attribute. A user who has turned off images in his browser or is using a text-based browser like Lynx in UNIX would miss the point of the image if there was no "alt" attribute to describe the image and it's purpose.

Posted by Steve

Second, let's establish the fact that every browser has its method of interpreting web pages, and that W3C standards has nothing to do with how a browser interprets HTML. IE does not misinterpret the code. Allow me to explain:
The tables and fieldsets you use are "freeform objects" -- objects whose containers are automatically resizable because you didn't specify the widths. In Mozilla, the table containers are given priority over fieldset containers, thus all freeform fieldsets are strictly bound within the table margins. In IE, however, these containers don't have strict priority over any other, thus allowing it to overlap into another container in certain conditions. [...] Many internet surfers find that pages viewed in Mozilla are generally "better rendered" than in IE. Is this because of their claim that Gecko follows standards better than IE? No. The truth is, besides the really obvious things, there is no real standard for rendering HTML. Every browser has their own method, and that's just fine. The problem arises when renderers take things into their own hands. A perfect example is your site. Mozilla automatically assumes certain properties about your object containers for the sole purpose of visual appeal. Big no-no because it takes control away from the programmer.

Your statement regarding Mozilla taking things into it's own hands is just one way of looking at things.

According to what you said, Mozilla gives tables priority over fieldsets, while IE does the opposite. How can that be interpreted to mean that Mozilla is taking things into it's own hands? It could easily be said that IE is *assuming* that fieldsets take priority over tables, just as you said Mozilla is *assuming* the opposite. Fine. I accept that each browser is rendering code in it's own way in this case.

You claim that in IE, it's only a conincidence that only one fieldset was inconsistent. How do you explain IE's clearly incorrect rendering of all these pages:
CSS1 Demo
Scrolling Text Demo
CSS Image Popups
Pure CSS Menus
X-Mas Tree

In the CSS demo, notice how the shell moves out of focus when you scroll down the page in IE. That was not the way the author intended it to be. The shell remains fixed in Mozilla even when you scroll down the page. This is because IE does not properly support the "background-attachment: fixed;" CSS attribute. Read carefully what the author of that page has to say on the matter too.
In the 2nd example, all you see in IE is a blank black page. In Mozilla, you see several lines of text scrolling up, and fading out as they leave the screen (like the credits in a movie).
In the 3rd example, IE will popup each image the first time you roll over a link, but it never goes away. So you get the images to stack up on top of each other, but they don't disappear when you mouse out of the links. Mozilla does not mishandle the code.
In the 4th example, hover over the "Books" menu item on the right. As per the code, the browser should display a hovering menu. IE doesn't display anything at all. Again, the Gecko rendering engine does.
In the 5th example, you should see lines of text in a christmas tree-like structure. Notice how IE completely messes up the structure of the tree, while Gecko, of course, handles it just fine.

And you said IE had "more stylesheet options." Despite what Microsoft claims, the fact is that IE does not handle CSS the way it's meant to be handled. I could spew out several more links, but I think the five I posted above give you the idea. All of them contain 100% standard CSS/HTML; yet, clearly IE is unable to handle them.

There might be pages out there that Mozilla is unable to handle. Agreed. But that's only because they use non-standard, IE-specific proprietary code. At least it renders valid code the way it's meant to be rendered.
I might want to create a "beep" tag that makes the PC speaker beep. I can't expect any browser to understand the tag, however, since it's not valid code. Same thing with Microsoft's proprietary code. It's not been standardized; hence, one can't expect it to be rendered correctly on any browser other than IE. Speaking of IE-specific code, read ahead...

Posted by Steve

As for PNG rendering, see this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;294714
IE uses the DXIImageTransform library, which has a plethora of functions, including the AlphaImageLoader() method, which renders PNG's, and the Alpha() method, which can set the semitransparency of ANY OBJECT--tables, divs, all types of images, and anything else inside a page--something Mozilla can't even dream of doing! Also, this way allows the developer disable the semi-transparency maps in PNG files if they don't want to use them. IE 5.5 also has 19 text filters and 24 transition effects built in. Mozilla has none.

Regarding the DXIImageTransform library: Lets say I have a 32-bit PNG with a transparent alpha mask. The transparency is inherently embedded in the image file when it was created in, lets say, Photoshop. It's not the work of the person coding the HTML part of the webpage to restate that the image uses transparency. It's like repeating the same bit of information twice. Doesn't that take away from productivity just like the use of "alt" attributes? Not only that, this library contains non-standard, IE-specific functions. The same goes for the 19 text filters and 24 transition effects that ONLY IE contains. Here's something I read that addresses this issue:

"Let's make this perfectly clear. There is one standards body for the Web - the W3C. It is headed by the man who *invented* the World Wide Web, and its mission is to collect the best ideas of different companies, including Microsoft, Netscape, Sun, and research labs and universities, to foster the most useful, accessible and cohesive network possible. Microsoft is a huge corporation, but they are not the owners,inventors or legislators of the Web. The W3C is the only standard that all browsers should follow, and anyone not writing web sites in standard HTML, CSS, XML, JavaScript takes on the reponsibility of alienating part of their audience and hindering the free exchange of free information."

The fact of the matter is this: By using IE-only code, you're making your website almost Windows-only (Well, Mac OS is the only other system that can use IE, although people are moving to Camino and Safari). If your target audience consists of Windows users ONLY, then it's perfectly fine.

However, you run the risk of losing all visitors using other OS such as Linux, UNIX, BSD, Solaris etc. Believe it or not, Windows is not the only operating system out there. :P Designing a website that is rendered perfectly by Mozilla, on the other hand, ensures that everybody can see your pages exactly the same, since Mozilla is an open-source, cross-platform project. The browser can run on not only virtually any OS there is, but on nearly every architechture as well (x86, PowerPC, SPARC etc)

Posted by Steve

Plus, IE supports more image types than Mozilla, including WBMP, PCT, PXR, TGA, and JPEG2000 (requires an add-on, but so far it's only available for IE). And that's all in version 5.5, I'm pretty sure version 6 has even more.

Well, the Mozilla project is an open-source initiative. The browser is still very young (Mozilla is just at v1.5b, and Firebird is only at 0.6), but already looks extremely promising. I'm sure these issues have already been filed in BugZilla. It won't be long before they're addressed, just like every other bug that is being fixed every day by the Mozilla team. A nightly build is released everyday, with either new features or bug fixes. That's the advantage you get with an open-source project.

On the other hand, IE is still not able to handle files with the xhtml extension properly. Try visiting a page with the .xhtml extension that's coded in standard XHTML code. IE opens a "Save as" dialog box instead of displaying the page. How long is it going to be before Microsoft releases a new version of the browser that addresses this issue?

Posted by Steve

I use IE because it give me complete control over my code, and I can simply do more with IE.

Fine with me. I'll tell you why I use Mozilla from two different perspectives:

As a day-to-day user: (1) Tabbed browsing (2) Built-in popup/banner blocking (3) Type-Ahead find (4) The sidebar (5) Theming support (6) Downloadable extensions (7) Open Source - it's a quality assurance; developers can always find out exactly why Mozilla behaves the way it does, or change it if they so desire. I find all of these points totally indispensable. You can read more about each of these on the "101 Reasons..." site.

As a web-designer: I use Mozilla because it gives me complete control over my code. I know that if a page looks ok in Mozilla, it's more than likely that it will look ok in any other browser on any OS and on any platform. There is a common misconception that Mozilla is so strict in it's rendering that it displays only perfect W3C validated pages correctly. This is untrue. I have been using this browser for two years now, and almost every page that I visit is rendered perfectly well, even if there are coding flaws.

I'll end this post by saying to each his own.
I'm not one of those Microsoft-haters who complain about everything the company ever created. I love Windows XP for it's stability, user-friendliness, and compatibility, just as I like a lot of other Microsoft applications. But I do believe in trying out alternatives. The so-called "Browser Wars" have existed ever since MSIE was launched in 1995. I have switched between IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Firebird, Opera and some Linux browsers on several occassions. No browser is without it's flaws, and each one of them has it's strong points. In the end, it's just what you feel most comfortable with. Although I don't like to stuff my opinions down someone else's throat, I do feel that everyone should give some of these "alternative" browsers a try once in a while.

You never know...you might find something you like.

Let's take a look at Steve's comment regarding Mozilla and Internet Explorer in response to this site that I posted a few days ago - "Yes, but IE has superior HTML/JavaScript coding "flexibility," cool built-in gfx effects, and more style-sheet options (screw w3c standards)."

This is going to be fun...

Number one: Coding "flexibility"
Ok, it's a well-known assumption that IE displays incorrectly coded webpages while Mozilla "messes them up." However, the fact is that's just what it appears to be. In reality, IE is displaying the webpage incorrectly, while Mozilla is displaying the page as it should look according to coding standards. Simple fact: Your code is valid, your site is displayed correctly in Mozilla...everytime...on any operating system.

Number two: Screw W3C standards
Screw W3C standards? Without standards, everything in the world would crumble...and I'm not kidding. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone coded just the way they felt like?

But forget the talk. Let's come to concrete evidence of how IE incorrectly renders perfect HTML code. As you know, my WebCam page is standard HTML 4.01 Transitional code. Take a look at this screenshot: Gecko vs. IE (Code rendering)
Notice the inconsistencies in IE's rendering? See how the "Main" and "Archives" fieldsets are rendered differently in IE although the code is exactly the same for both? And then, notice how Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine does a perfectly consistent job when displaying both fieldsets? What does this mean? Anyone viewing this site using IE would think I coded it incorrectly, when in fact, it's IE that's taking matters into it's own hands and screwing with the rendering.

And IE has "cool built-in gfx effects?" Have you seen the way IE renders 32-bit PNG images?! It's ridiculously ugly! Head over to this site, and scroll down to the image of the fish bowl. Then take a look at this picture, which compares how that image is rendered in Mozilla and IE: Gecko vs. IE (32-bit PNGs). See the difference? Which one looks better? Which one looks like what the creator intended it to be? In fact, every image on that page looks different (and better, of course) in Mozilla than it does in IE.

Anyways, any questions? Comments? Counter-arguments? Click the "leave a comment" link below.

Back from Orientation...I have now been officially Bruinized!
Might post more about it tomorrow morning...

UCLA Orientation tomorrow!
Blog is going to be on hold for the next few days...I'll be back late Thursday evening.

Some pretty big news in the tech world:

Source: The Register

Jobless levels in the USA reached their highest point for twenty years this week, and the mother lode of the "Long Boom", San Francisco, has just been declared the fastest-shrinking city in the nation.
Now AOL-Time Warner added to the pyre by making most of its Netscape browser division redundant. Netscape's public flotation in 1995 marked the start of the Internet frenzy. But in the blink of an accountant's eye, the great emblem of California's vitality as an engine for technology-led prosperity disappeared, and contractors were seen peeling the logo off the corporate buildings early yesterday afternoon.

In short, AOL-Time Warner has decided to kill Netscape. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing. I always preferred Mozilla/Firebird to Netscape, and since the Mozilla Project is open-source, there's no news of it being shut down as well. This can only mean that current Netscape users will finally move to Mozilla (which, again, I think is a superior browser in any case), giving the project a larger user base and making it much more popular.
And for those that still use Internet Explorer, make sure you take a look at this link to see what you're missing out on: 101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that IE cannot

Finally here to catch up on the last few days... *bows*

So uhmm...let's see. On Friday evening, my parents and I went to the Hollywood Bowl with some family friends for a show called Blue Planet Live. For people that hadn't ever heard of Blue Planet ever before, it was a series created by the Discovery Channel and BBC about the oceans and marine life. If I remember correctly, there was an IMAX version too (in fact, I even remember watching it, so I must be right )
Anyways, Blue Planet Live was somewhat of a musical performance by the orchestra that actually played the soundtrack for the Blue Planet series. And while the music was on, they had these huge screens showing some fantastic clips from the series. There were a couple of commentators now and then too. On the whole, the performance by the orchestra was just brilliant! I mean...it wasn't until Friday evening that I realized how important the role of the orchestra is in movies and documentaries. The musicians are definitely just as important as the cameramen in creating the whole effect. So yeah, the show was just a great experience. And of course, the whole setting was really cool too...sitting under the open skies in the midst of the hills in Hollywood at night.

Then Saturday called for some more common entertainment - the movies! Pirates of the Caribbean and Johnny English were on my list of must-see movies, so a group of us decided to go watch both of them. Both movies were really entertaining. I expected Rowan Atkinson to be totally hilarious, and my expectations were most definitely met. Pirates was really well done too! The movie was pretty long, but it was awesome. The acting was great, and the storyline was very engaging too. Anyone who hasn't already watched either of these two movies MUST go watch them. You won't be disappointed.

I've been looking at the UCLA HSSEAS course list, and trying to figure out what I'd like to enroll in. I'm planning to take either 3 or 4 classes during my first quarter, and I'm thinking of "Math 32A - Multivariable Calculus", "Physics 1A - Mechanics", and perhaps "Psychology 10." The weird thing is since I get AP credit to cover the first Computer Science course, I don't get to take any C.S. courses in my first quarter! The course that's supposed to follow the first one isn't offered in Fall, and all the other C.S. courses have other pre-requisites!

A C.S. major with no C.S. courses in his first quarter!
That is just messed up...

Site design changes! I'm not quite sure I'm done playing with it yet...more to come maybe?

I have been trying to tidy up my code to make it valid HTML 4.01 Transitional according to W3C standards, and I realized that the one stupid mistake that's preventing the site from being compliant is that I forgot to insert the "alt" attribute for all the images. Now if it was just the title graphic and the few random pics that I've been posting now and then, it would have been fine. But pictures include every single smiley I've (over)used. I'm definitely not bored enough to go over each and every smiley and add an alt attribute to each one. But I've corrected the problem so I should be posting compliant code at least from now on.

Looks like I'm going to have to wait until next month to have a fully compliant site. On a brighter note, I'm using valid CSS, and my Pictures page is valid HTML 4.01 Transitional code (since it doesn't contain all those smileys)!

June archives are up...Blogger has finally started working properly when it comes to monthly archiving. Had to do it manually before, and that was just a pain. Wow, so that means almost 3 months of blogging. Crazy!

That reminds me, why isn't anyone else updating their blogs/Xangas anymore? Barely anyone talking on AIM since school ended either. God knows where you ppl have gone, and what you all are upto...