PicForth 1.0 is released

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> writes:
>
>Guy> I am seeing the line "PicForth: Forth compiler for PIC
>Guy> microcontrollers" on top of the link at the upper right, and with
>Guy> the graphic of the computer on top of it.
>
>Thanks, fixed :)

It now looks great on Netscape 7.2, Mozilla FireFox 1.0 and Opera 7.54,
("Picforth" top and center) but Internet Explorer 6.0.2800.1106 puts
the "Picforth" header all the way to the left, where the graphic 
cuts it off so that it reads "PicFor".

Try removing the <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> at the
top.  It is optional in XHTML, and triggers a bug in IE that makes 
it go into quirks mode rather than standards-compliance mode.

If that doesn't work, try setting margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto 
and possibly width: 50% or width: 100% on the h1 in your CSS.

What I am thinking is that margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; 
centers a block level element, text-align: center; centers the 
inline content of a block level element, and MSIE has bugs that 
result in it treating some block level content as inline content
when in quirks mode. 

"Samuel Tardieu" <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote in message
news:87mzxrqdcj.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net...
> PicForth 1.0 has been released today. PicForth is a Forth
> cross-compiler running on Unix hosts (tested on FreeBSD) and
> targetting the Microchip 16F8xx family of microcontrollers.
>
> PicForth 1.0 is hosted by gforth 0.6.2. For more information, please
> look at:
>
>     http://www.rfc1149.net/devel/picforth/
>
> PicForth 1.0 is mature and is already used in production at several
> places.
>
>   Sam
> -- 
> Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

If the web site is giving quality issues, how can we be expected to bother
with the Forth?

John Smith wrote:

>If the web site is giving quality issues, how can we be expected 
>to bother with the Forth?

The website does NOT have any quality issues.  It is well-written
XHTML that validates perfectly, and the design has a nice clean CSS
based approach.

It is Internet Explorer that has quality issues.  IE doesn't follow
the standards.  Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer 
must find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code.

-- 
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com>
 

>>>>> "Guy" == Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> writes:

Guy> Try removing the <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> at
Guy> the top.  It is optional in XHTML, and triggers a bug in IE that
Guy> makes it go into quirks mode rather than standards-compliance
Guy> mode.

Yes, I know this one, but I'll be honest: I don't care if MSIE users
have a problem because of a MSIE bug. I think it will be a disservice
to the community as:

  - other browsers (especially Firefox) are freely available, much
    better in my opinion and more secure

  - if people prefer to use MSIE (for any reasons, they may for
    example prefer the look and feel of MSIE over other browsers one),
    they should ask their vendor (Microsoft in this case) to get the
    bug fixed and get the standards respected

  - the more people use MSIE, the more sites will continue to be
    MSIE-only - this is against my interests (as MSIE can't run on any
    of my systems) and against the interests of the Free Software
    community

Thanks anyway for your suggestions Guy, I'll keep them around if I
really need them.

 Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

>>>>> "John" == John Smith <bill.gates@microsoft.com> writes:

John> If the web site is giving quality issues, how can we be expected
John> to bother with the Forth?

You're confusing the container and the content. You could well say
that if I'm not offering CD with the software, then the software must
be crappy.

Anyway, as Guy underlined, the problem is with MSIE. If you are using
a browser with quality issues, how can you be serious about
programming? It demonstrates rather poor requirements.

  Sam

PS/ in case it is not clear, I'm just pulling your leg here :)
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Guy Macon wrote:
> The website does NOT have any quality issues.  It is well-written
> XHTML that validates perfectly, and the design has a nice clean CSS
> based approach.
> 
> It is Internet Explorer that has quality issues.  IE doesn't follow
> the standards.  Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer 
> must find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code.

Oh my!  The most common HTML rendering tool doesn't follow the 
"standard".  Whatever shall we do?  I guess we'll just stamp our little 
feet and cry.

Please - the fact that standards do not conform to reality is far older 
than Microsoft and HTML.  I totally agree with you that in an ideal, 
standards-compliant world, the web designer's job would be a lot 
simpler.  However, if your web page won't render with MSIE, you're 
needlessly blowing off potential customers on some sort of principle.

Your business choice, of course,
Kelly

Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote in message news:<87k6su3r3w.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net>...
> 
> Anyway, as Guy underlined, the problem is with MSIE. If you are using
> a browser with quality issues, how can you be serious about
> programming? It demonstrates rather poor requirements.
 
Forthers tend to upgrade their computers more slowly, because they
don't need the latest hardware to run their applications. Of maybe
they are better at making do with what they have.

It's the same thing with car mechanics. Mechanics tend to drive older
cars. I know a mechanic in Mexico that drives something that looks
like he fished it off the sea floor.

Brad

Kelly Hall wrote:

> Guy Macon wrote:
>> The website does NOT have any quality issues.  It is well-written
>> XHTML that validates perfectly, and the design has a nice clean CSS
>> based approach.
>> 
>> It is Internet Explorer that has quality issues.  IE doesn't follow
>> the standards.  Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer
>> must find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code.
> 
> Oh my!  The most common HTML rendering tool doesn't follow the
> "standard".  Whatever shall we do?  I guess we'll just stamp our little
> feet and cry.

Hm, add a small exploit, which takes over the computer, downloads and
installs Firefox, and reboots. Windows users are used to funny reboots,
anyway. Next time they want to surf that location, it renders ok, and their
browser magically has become much more comfortable ;-).

Maybe you could even use a small page for IE users telling them to upgrade
their browser (e.g. pointing to
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all.html). I've seen many pages
which tell you to update your browser - and it was always IE 5.5 or 6.0
which they were pointing to. I react on things like that by setting
Konqueror to tell the site that it is IE 6.0 on Windows XP, and most pages
do go fine with that setting (although all of them are horribly broken in
terms of W3C standards). Why not tell the user that his browser sucks?
After all, it's true: his browser sucks. And Firefox is only 4.5MB.

> Please - the fact that standards do not conform to reality is far older
> than Microsoft and HTML.  I totally agree with you that in an ideal,
> standards-compliant world, the web designer's job would be a lot
> simpler.  However, if your web page won't render with MSIE, you're
> needlessly blowing off potential customers on some sort of principle.

The "product" in question is free software. There are no customers, there
are only users. And user count is not really important for free software,
since user's don't pay.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

Kelly Hall wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> The website does NOT have any quality issues.  It is well-written
>> XHTML that validates perfectly, and the design has a nice clean CSS
>> based approach.
>> 
>> It is Internet Explorer that has quality issues.  IE doesn't follow
>> the standards.  Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer 
>> must find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code.
>
>Oh my!  The most common HTML rendering tool doesn't follow the 
>"standard".  Whatever shall we do?  I guess we'll just stamp our little 
>feet and cry.

>Your business choice, of course,

What part of "Alas, a lot of people use it, so the web designer 
must find workarounds for Microsoft's buggy code" are you having 
trouble understanding?

Greetings,

John Smith wrote:
> 
> If the web site is giving quality issues, how can we be expected to bother
> with the Forth?
> 

So the logic here is if one cannot write HTML, one also is incapable of 
writing decent C or ASM or whatever?

My Polish is rusty, so I guess I cannot speak English either.

-- 
Kyle A. York
Sr. Subordinate Grunt