Maintenance notice

(Ver en español.)

Dear visitor: thank you for dropping by. If, by happenstance, you’re visiting this blog using any Internet Explorer version, I have another message for you:

does not support data: . That’s the reason you cannot see some images here.

To put it briefly: an URI denotes a way to access data of some kind. The most popular one is http:, which instructs concerned software that whatever follows should be accessed by means of HTTP protocol. There are other schemes, among others file:, https: and rdf:. data: URI tags ensuing text as binary data. It is most frequently used to embed tiny images in a web page, saving a query and an HTTP roundtrip per image. Response times per image are reduced, more pronouncedly so for smaller ones.

data: URIs were first described in standard RFC 2397 (august 1998). The fact that this standard is not supported by Internet Explorer, not even in its latest version, IE7, hasn’t come to my attention till recently.

You should really have a look at other browsers (Firefox, Opera; I am a happy user of both, the former on my PCs under Windows and Linux, the latter on my mobile phone). Don’t do it for this blog —you aren’t losing much, really— or for those geeky data: URIs, which aren’t so popular after all. But you should be safer, and you’ll help foster diversity in browser’s ecosystem. And diversity propels (technology) evolution.

Anuncios

Aviso de mantenimiento

(English text.)

Si visitas esta bitácora, tengo una cosa que decirte: muchas gracias. Si, además, lo haces usando alguna de las versiones de Internet Explorer, tengo que comunicarte otra:

no soporta . Por eso no ves algunas imágenes de este blog.

En breve: un esquema de URI identifica una forma de acceder a datos. El más popular es http:, que indica al agente o usuario que lo que sigue es accesible a través del protocolo HTTP, pero hay otros, como file:, https: y rdf:. Las URIs de tipo data: indican que lo que sigue son datos binarios. Entre los usos más comunes, data: permite codificar pequeñas imágenes estáticas en una página web. Al tener la imagen embebida en el texto de la página, se ahorra una consulta y una petición HTTP por imagen, y cuando ésta es sólo de algunos bytes, la ganancia relativa en tiempo de carga es considerable.

Las URIs de tipo data: fueron especificadas en agosto de 1998 mediante el estándar RFC 2397. No he sido consciente hasta hace poco de que este estándar no está soportado por Internet Explorer, ni siquiera en su última versión, IE7.

No lo hagas por ver este blog correctamente (tampoco es para tanto, la verdad), pero te recomiendo que pruebes otra cosa, como Firefox u Opera (yo uso ambos, uno en el PC bajo Windows y Linux, el otro en el móvil). De paso, estarás más seguro y ayudarás a mantener la diversidad en el ecosistema de los navegadores, fundamental para que la evolución tecnológica no se detenga.

Valid XHTML within Blogger…

… In your dreams! Google seems to maintain an attitude of Olympic disdain to standards. While we are all busy booing Microsoft for their trademarked Embrace&Extinguish move, Google can and does get off with just a collective pat on the back. I understand —and share— the Google fascination, as I understood —and shared, much to my current chagrin— the Microsoft fascination that was prevalent on the nineties. But ‘standards are good’ is as powerful a as it can be, and moreover, it’s actually true.

If Google bit the bullet and implemented the rather meager changes needed to make possible actual XHTML compliance into Blogger’s template engine, very few bloggers would take the task of ensuring their pages’ validity upon themselves. A wasted effort? Let’s have a look from the other side: I feel I’m denied a freedom when I can’t comply, no matter how hard I try, with a standard I consider as a basic building block of the (some call this Web 3.0, but given the current state of affairs, it might well be called Web Millenium Edition or, even worse, Web Vista).

I am not alone. I want my blog, unimportant as it might be, readable by people and machines alike; and not just by smart ones like Google employees and Googlebots. I want maximum accesibility without having to cast undocumented incantations (versus W3C documented ones, I mean). I know standards are pointless, difficult and boring, and Google is all about instant gratification, do-what-I-mean interfaces and having fun. I know standards are for nerds. Unattractive, glamour-less nerds. Please, let me try.