I haven’t used JavaScript and CSS seriously for many years now. These dinosaur-riddled posts provided good catch-up material for both:
Archive for the Category » Web development «
FS-data was the first web hotel in Sweden to support Ruby on Rails (in August 2006, I think) and I’m glad they did. Unfortunately they haven’t touched their setup since, so patrons are still limited to (a) apps in subdirectories only and (b) FastCGI (FCGI). I have seen many complaints about FCGI, but I have only one: it’s really hard to know if it’s running my latest release. FS-data have added a control panel of sorts, but it’s pretty unreliable. Thus, I have to resort to kill
ing. But what to kill
?
$ ps -fe | grep rails
UID PID PPID C STIME TTY TIME CMD
wcj 27292 3558 27 13:41 ? 00:00:02 RAILS: /home/w/wcj/rails/sis/public/dispatch.fcgi
wcj 27365 3558 40 13:41 ? 00:00:02 RAILS: /home/w/wcj/rails/sis/public/dispatch.fcgi
...
With more than two processes I refuse to kill
by PID – FCGI is just too quick to spawn new processes, and I’m not sure if they will run the right version of my app either. So it’s killall
. But what to killall
?
$ killall -9 'RAILS: /home/w/wcj/rails/sis/public/dispatch.fcgi'
does not work. So it’s ps
to the rescue:
$ ps -eo pid,comm:30
PID COMMAND
27365 rails_dispatche
27292 rails_dispatche
rails_dispatche
, really? No final ‘r’? Whatever:
killall -9 rails_dispatche
It works and I’m happy again.
[This is a re-write of a project note I wrote in project over a year ago. Published here to make the world a better place.]
There has been some commotion recently regarding XHTML and HTML, where standardistas have reiterated their arguments about XHTML: it’s a nice standard, but since is isn’t actually treated as XHTML by browsers, it’s better to use HTML.
The “standard” text on this (at least for me) is http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml from which I’d like to quote the executive summary:
If you use XHTML, you should deliver it with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type. If you do not do so, you should use HTML4 instead of XHTML. The alternative, using XHTML but delivering it as text/html, causes numerous problems that are outlined below. Unfortunately, IE6 does not support application/xhtml+xml (in fact, it does not support XHTML at all).
I have come back to that text on several occasions, but it never quite convinced me. I didn’t want to lose the well-formedness of XHTML. Then I ran across http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml which made me change my mind. The article uses numerous examples to show that XHTML is not just a syntactically nicer version of HTML, but it actually has slightly differing rules for how to apply CSS. So basically, in all projects that I have used XHTML, I have been relying on bugs in present browsers. Ouch.
Time to change—back
They promised us that XHTML was the future, so I haven’t worried too much about HTML lately. Are there any downsides to using HTML instead? Well, not per se. But the tools and platforms I use are slightly XHTML-centric.
-
All the standard Rails helpers (form helpers, JS helpers, etc.) produce xhtml. The simple solution is to drop this in a file in
lib/
:module ActionView::Helpers::TagHelper def tag_with_html_syntax(name, options = nil, open = true, escape = true) tag_without_html_syntax(name, options, open, escape) end alias_method_chain :tag, :html_syntax end
-
TextMate snippets produce XHTML. Most of them can be controlled by an environment variable, but there are exceptions, like C-ret which produces produces an XHTML self-closed br element.
- External tools, data sources and parsers are usually xml-centric.
- WordPress, which I have used for a few client projects lately, spits out XHTML. I’ll see if I can create a patch for that and have it accepted.
Oh well. XHTML, I’ll miss you. HTML, can we be friends again?
Recent Comments