This blog contains reflections and thoughts on my work as a software engineer
mandag den 31. januar 2011
fredag den 21. januar 2011
The wif'e’s out and the kids are asleep, nothing interesting is on the TV so I started googling for “HTML5 explained” and such. I’m interested in the subject because I feel obliged to stay tuned on the new stuff coming at us and I’ve wanted to dig a few feet deep into the matter when I had the time. What I found was simply so interesting that I wanted to share it with you because it’s a whole new world, baby…
By looking into the matter I found quite a few blogposts by people being concerned that the term “HTML5” is more of a marketing phrase than a distinct set of related technologies. Jeffrey Zelmand (who first coined the term “Web 2.0”, I think it was) has an interesting blogpost on the subject. He advocates for us to market HTML5 as “HTML5 and related technologies” or “HTML5 and other new technologies”. The reason is that HTML5 is still so vague that people don’t understand it (I don’t either – don’t shoot me, I’m just the pianoplayer) – which leaves plenty of room for misunderstanding core concepts and discussions running in circles. I like the “HTML5 and related technologies” since the HTML5 specification is concerning a lot on core HTML concepts (parsing) and less on everything else. There’s nothing about CSS in the spec for instance – that’s another story told by another spec.
How will the spec end up looking like? It is still under active development and every release has a profound disclaimer telling the world that they should expect the current APIs and elements to be subjects of change in the coming years until the standard have settled and stabilized itself. I found a fascinating post about the development of the first HTML standard and how it became to what we work with (and sometimes curse upon every day). Get this: “But none of this answers the original question: why do we have an
<img> element? Why not an
<icon> element? Or an
<include> element? Why not a hyperlink with an
include attribute, or some combination of
rel values? Why an
<img> element? Quite simply, because Marc Andreessen shipped one, and shipping code wins” I don’t expect things to have changed much since then (sarcasm intended) so we will probably see some of the big players on the market implementing things their way and once their solution reaches critical mass – that’s how things make it into standardized glory.
Feel free to comment on your thoughts on HTML5 – I’d love some feedback on my thoughts in this matter.
Indsendt af Kristian Erbou
onsdag den 12. januar 2011
Sharepoint 2010 can be a tricky bastard sometimes… One of the small, annoying things I’ve discovered being married to Sharepoint 2010 is that yesterday when I added two new columns in Schema.xml to an existing custom document contenttype I couldn’t update these two columns in the List Item Edit dialogue. The other columns in my content type (metadata fields) worked fine but my new Expiration date and a checkbox column wouldn’t change it’s values. Nothing showed up in the log-files – what the hey?? I wasn’t really surprised though. Behaviour like this isn’t uncommon during Sharepoint development so I googled the problem and found out that I had to alter the column name and everything would work out fine… Which it to my pleasant surprise did.
To make things work I ended up changing the StaticName Property on my Field in Schema.xml, hit deploy and things have went smooth from here. I’m writing this to spread the word since I had a bit of trouble finding a solution to my problem. Spread the word :o)
Indsendt af Kristian Erbou
Etiketter: Sharepoint 2010