DHTML is literally just HTML that is dynamically modified by JavaScript. DHTML became a term when JavaScript became ubiquitous. It was not an extension.
Javascript was not ubiquitous when the term DHTML was last seriously used. And yes, CSS and javascript were extensions at the time, not very widely supported across all browsers.
We had table based layouts and then divs when CSS started to take off, mostly used by artists rather than companies at first.
Javascript had vanishingly limited uses at first, too. I don't remember exactly how long it took us to get XHR but before that we had "Comet frames", before iframe security was given much focus. Javascript couldn't do that for a while. It was also dodgy and considered bad practice for quite a while, too.
I don't remember when the term javascript was even really used in regular vernacular but DHTML was not so much referring to CSS as it was the myriad of weird mechanisms introduced to make pages dynamic. It was never "Div-based HTML" or whatever, the div craze came way later once CSS was Good Enough to eschew table layouts - after which, Dreamweaver died and photoshop's slice tool finally got removed, and we started inching toward where the web sits today.
I also do distinctly recall needing a doctype for DHTML for some browsers.
> Javascript was not ubiquitous when the term DHTML was last seriously used.
It wasn't as fast or as usable as it is today, but Javascript has been in every mainstream browser since before Microsoft started pushing "DHTML".
Interestingly, in my memory, it seemed like we had JS for a long time before DHTML, but it was only a couple years between Eich writing it and IE4, which was the start of the "DHTML" moniker. Looking back at the timeline, everything seems much more compressed than it felt at the time.
DHTML was just JavaScript that mutated the DOM. That’s literally all it ever was. There was also not a DHTML doctype. There was also not anything even called “an extension”. There were Java applets, ActiveX controls, and ActionScript -> JavaScript bridges, which the concept of DHTML (dynamic HTML) eventually fully replaced.
Divs weren’t a “craze”. They were popularized by the (brand new) XHTML spec, which did have its own doctype.
JS was ubiquitous when DHTML was pushed by Microsoft, because DHTML required JScript aka JS.
CSS was not there in the '90s because Netscape didn't implement, and MS did its own subset.
JS and CSS both suffered from wildly inconsistent support between Netscape and IE, but JS at root had interop enough to support hotmail, later OddPost, much more. CSS had no extension mechanism based on JS then, so it suffered browser-specific support that was IMHO worse than JS suffered. No way to polyfill.
> I don't remember when the term javascript was even really used in regular vernacular
2004 or 2005. Gmail and Google Maps were a "holy crap this is actually possible?" for a lot of people, both technical and non, and was when javascript switched from mostly-ignored* to embraced.
*Just minor enhancements, outside of technical people mostly only known to MySpace users who wanted to add a little flair to their page. XmlHttpRequest was almost entirely unknown even in technical spaces until gmail showcased interaction without page refreshes.
The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law.
If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.
Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
Obama’s deportation numbers were juiced compared to post-2015 numbers because there was a change in the definition of that term.
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
> Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
Just say your name and people will call you by that name. Politely request pronoun use if you must, but don't expect everyone to remember or even care -- especially if you're using anything but she/her or he/him.
If we accept either side's definition of who the "real abusers" are, then politics will continue to hobble projects. If you are starved of people to discuss your political views with, it's the wrong thing to do to vomit those out in a programming thread. Go make some real friends if you're looking to do that. Not everyone will see the world the way you do.
Hopefully! And it takes every kind of weird to make it fun. You don't have to like or hang with everyone in a community. But sometimes the people you don't understand personally wind up being the ones you will respect the most from a skill/talent perspective. A strong foundation of mutual respect built up over time is how you create real tolerance and even change minds.
So... if you have guests on your network or are otherwise connected to a network with lots of people on it, can they just grab all your photos this way?
1. Domestic terrorist organization specifically is not a thing under US law, that is true. But domestic terrorism is, and we do have RICO statutes. (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47885)
2. Not incoherent. Seems pretty specific: All relevant executive departments and agencies shall utilize all applicable authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa, or for which Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa provided material support, including necessary investigatory and prosecutorial actions against those who fund such operations.
That only works if elections can be considered fair and square. With this government the chance they will try to turn it into something more like a Russian election is way above 0%, and most likely will reach about 100%.
It is an annual cost. This will dramatically shake up the US tech industry. I expect to see engineering budgets increase, and less Americans struggling to get interviews and ultimately jobs at companies HQ'ed here.
The originally stated purpose of the H1-B program was to import top-tier elite talent but anyone who watched it evolve saw that it became terribly exploitative. I've watched as companies that I've worked for have given 1/4 market rate or worse to H1-B hires. They got addicted to cheap talent. It stopped being about talent on the hiring side and more about increasing head-count at a major discount.
Bring in top talent, but pay them what they're worth if you do. A top-talent elite hire should easily be worth double what a native-born top-talent elite hire would be worth if this program can just do what it was designed to do.
Because they would have done it already. Why go through the hassle of bringing over an h1b if you could just hire them overseas now? The use case for h1b is different from outsourcing. If the requirements need to have someone in their US branch then you use h1b.
I have a feeling if you hire more Indians in India (which is already coming out to ~40$ per hour billing rate) you are going to be stuck with the problem that you now have the typical Indian outsourcing problem which is why companies want them locally: to keep an eye on them.
My hope is that this unleashes American tech workers and the US market again. There is almost no reason to apply for H1B anymore except for the original purpose of hiring workers with very unique skill sets that cannot be found in the US. This could be the most monumental thing this Admin does for tech workers as long as there is not some monkey paw aspect to this
There's obviously a monkey's paw aspect! Big US tech companies are going to immediately freeze their hiring budgets until they get clarity on whether this fee is permitted and how they should pay it for existing employees. Hope you're not an American tech worker looking for a job right now!
