News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Slashdot Log In
einhverfr (238914)
Why Firefox 3 is Bad for Developers
One of the major problems I have run into with Firefox three is that XHTML which passes the W3C's valiators is not rendered at all. The problem has to do with the fact that the W3C and the Firefox team apparently have different views as to what the XHTML spec actually means.
See the discussion in the following bugzilla entries:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408702
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412114
The following XHTML document renders on Seamonkey but not on FF3. Furthermore, it passes the W3C's validators with no problems:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>LedgerSMB 1.2.99</title>
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache"/>
<meta http-equiv="Expires" content="-1"/>
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/ledgersmb.css" type="text/css" title="LedgerSMB stylesheet"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="UI/login.css" type="text/css" title="LedgerSMB stylesheet"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/ledgersmb.css" type="text/css" title="LedgerSMB stylesheet"/>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="UI/login.js"/>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>
</head>
<body class="login" onload="setup_page('Name:',
'Password:');">
<br/><br />
<center>
<form method="post" action="login.pl" name="login"
onsubmit="return submit_form()">
<input id="menubar" type="hidden" name="menubar" value=""/>
<input id="blacklisted" type="hidden" name="blacklisted" value=""/>
<div class="login">
<div class="login" align="center">
<a href="http://www.ledgersmb.org/" target="_top"><img src="images/ledgersmb.png" class="logo" alt="LedgerSMB Logo"/></a>
<h1 class="login" align="center">Version SVN Trunk</h1>
<div align="center">
<div id="credentials"></div>
<div id="company_div">
<div class="labelledinput">
<div class="label">
<label for="company">
Company
</label>
</div>
<div class="input">
<input class="login"
type="text"
name="company"
size="30"
id="company"
accesskey="c"/>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<button type="submit" name="action" value="login" accesskey="l">Login</button>
</div>
</div></div>
</form>
<p><a href="admin.pl">Administrative login</a></p>
</center>
</body>
</html>
The problem lies with the tag in the document head. Firefox 3 sees it as unterminated while the W3C validator sees it as properly terminated. The Firefox team argues that the W3C validator is wrong and that they won't support content that the W3C's tools say are valid.
The Firefox Team's Rationale:
The new behavior in Firefox, as it turns out is behavior by design. The issue has to do with a security fix which had to do with unterminated tags in earlier versions, where the tag would be ignored and the rest of the document would be processed as HTML. Obviously this is a problem because it leads to ambiguity as to the nature of content, whether it is executable, and what it does. I support their efforts to fix it, but I also think that the fix is as flawed from developers' perspective as User Access Control is in Vista from a power user's perspective. Basically a self-terminating tag is differentiable from an unterminated one and since the W3C's validators show this as valid, it should be handled.
See:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305873
Why this is a bad thing:
Now, arguably the W3C's validators are wrong. According to the spec and the DTD, the script tag really *should* have an end tag. However, expecting that all developers are going to be spec lawyers is a serious mistake. Many developers *do* rely on the W3C validators as being the ultimate arbitrator of what is valid HTML and XHTML. Failing to handle this case in the same way will:
1) Needlessly flood bugzilla with repetative bugs.
2) Drive developers away from Firefox to those who are more inline with existing validation tools
3) Create support headaches for everyone.
This is a trivial fix without the dire security issues the Firefox team has invoked.
A second option would be to engage with the W3C to help ensure that such discrepancies are resolved bidirectionally. A little effort now will save a lot of headache for everyone down the road. I would hate to see Firefox 3 become more or less the Windows Vista of Open Source, but this may happen if the FF team decides to go it alone in their interpretation of the specs. That would be a real shame.
A Way out of Colombia's Mess
I have been thinking a great deal about how Colombia can get out of the civil war which has torn the country apart for over four decades. The problems are deep but they may be soon solvable. In short, leadership of the government devoted to social justice, economic growth, and security for all Colombians is absolutely necessary. There is hope that this can happen but not under Alvarro Uribe.
Colombia's civil war began as a Communist insurrection in the 1960's. The goal of the Communist powers was probably to weaken US influence in the region especially in the wake of the decision by Colombia to send thousands of troops to fight in the Korean war. However, over time, FARC has cut all political ties to any political parties and has become primarily occupied with their own financial interests relating to drug trafficking. There are other leftist rebels in Colombia, but none of them match the force of the FARC.
In part to contain the FARC, the Colombian government has financed and sponsored a number of right-wing militias which are also into terrorism, narcotrafficking, etc. While not as big or as strong as the FARC, they are still a major force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, the current president, Uribe, has continued policies of backing these militas. Consequently Colombians are left with no guarantees of security in a civil war where both sides readily resort to terrorism and where both sides finance their aims via the manufacture and sale of cocaine.
As hellish as the situation sounds (and Colombia is not likely to be somewhere I would go to visit at the moment), the beginnings of hope are starting to emerge. The peace process and FARC's handling of it have caused most of the left-wing of Colombian politics to cease supporting the organization, since their main goal has become that of narcotrafficking. While the right-wing and the government has not abandoned their terrorist organizations yet, political pressure is building to do so.
What Colombia needs is for a center-left candidate to emerge victorious in Presidential elections with a message that Colombia as a whole can unite behind. THe center-left part is important because this is necessary for being able to crebibly reject violence from the FARC. The message needs to be one of social justice, economic growth, and an attempt to provide security for all Colombians from the terrorist organizations which have dominated both sides of this conflict. Once Colombians turn away from violence, then the militias (including the FARC) can be taken down.
It will not be easy-- Uribe is seeking modifications to term limits to let him run again for the same office. In this regard, he joins the ranks of Hugo Chavez, Alberto Fujimori, and other Latin American authoritarian leaders who would rather rewrite the law than step down. While it is hoped that the measure doesn't pass, we will have to see. Secondly, any President able to marginalize the militias would almost certainly have a platform that the US would not like. There would be additional resistance to breaking the historic ties between the countries.
Nonetheless, I am hopefull it can be done. It seems possible that within another decade, this horrible civil war will be only a memory.
Winners and Losers in the Latin American Crisis
I have generally called Colombia's raid unbelievably stupid. However, I figured I would discuss who the real winners and losers are in the developing crisis:
Winner: The FARC. With this crisis, Colombia has recalled their troops away from border areas, giving FARC a large and safe corridor in which to operate. Venezuela's mobilization is also believed to give the leader of FARC military protection of the Venezuelan government. If FARC continues with negotiations and releases the hostages as previously expected, France has also expressed some willingness to cease regarding FARC as a terrorist organization. Legitimacy by even some EU members may be a strategic victory in the on-going conflict. (Personally, I think that FARC needs to be seen for what it is-- a large-scale mafia-like organized crime syndicate which does not recognize international borders. I am not sure I would call them "terrorists" so much as the "Colombian Mob." They have no real political platform other than their own economic interests in cocaine production.)
Winner: Ecuador. Ecuador has in the past taken a tough line against general FARC activity in Ecuador with the exception of offers to try to mediate a peace process and hostage release. The attack has been seen across Latin America as unacceptable, and Correa has gained much-needed support.
Winner: OAS. OAS has shown that they are capable of dealing with crises in the area and helping to get people to back away from the brink of war (Ecuador has threatened military retaliation against Colombia over the cross-border raid).
Loser: Hugo Chavez. Closing the border to Colombia will exacerbate inflation and food shortages in Venezuela and likely cause dissatisfaction in the longer run.
Loser: Averro Uribe. Uribe is standing alone in this crisis-- it is unclear how much support he has even in Colombia relating to his handling of the crisis. The economic toll to Colombia is likely to be a real problem in the ongoing civil war.
Winner: de Silva. Brazil has shown that they can be a real diplomatic powerhouse in the area. It is likely that Brazil's influence in South America will be strengthened by their role in this crisis.
Loser: The USA. Bush's handling of the crisis ensures without any doubt that the lease for the only USAF base in South America (in Manta, Ecuador) will not be renewed. The posturing of all presidential candidates on the issue have further weakened US credibility and diplomacy in the area. The leftist governments see the US as being imperial, while the right-wing governments see the US as undermining their sovereignty. This is not good for us.
To be fair, Colombia's actions would be like having the US, without proper authorization from Mexico, carry out raids on drug trafficking organizations using American air and ground troops. Colombia clearly overstepped any reasonable lines and this explains Mexico's support for Ecuador on the matter.
And FARC won the battle :-(
As an American, I often feel like my President is unparalleled in stupidity* when it comes to managing our involvement in conflicts and crises around the world. Then, on occasion, someone does something somewhere which makes me realize we are not alone in our experience of being ruled by idiots.
* Ok, that is an overstatement. Bush may be inept at handling many crises but he has made important contributions to the resolution of others.
This week was one such week. Colombia attacked an encampment of FARC personnel in Ecuador during hostage negotiations prompting threats of war from two of Columbia's neighbors, Ecuador and Venezuela. When asked for an appology, Colombia has given given one entirly devoid of substance (sort of "sorry for the inconvenience, but we would do it again").
So the crisis began to unfold. By now at least Ecuador and Venezuela have deployed troops to the border with Colombia, and Peru may be doing the same. The three countries (often at odds with eachother) have united in support for Ecuador's sovereign control over that country's territory. Ecuador has even threatened military action against Colombia if substantive actions are taken on Colombia's side.
This was an extremely stupid move on Colombia's part. This has alienated the country which leases the space for the USAF base which the US uses for most anti-FARC missions, and it has also given Chavez an excuse to provide actual military support to the FARC. Furthermore this isolates Colombia and thus risks to cause issues for the economy of the area. Finally, as long as Ecuador is threatening military action against Colombia over the incursion, this provides FARC with a safe corridor of operations near the border of Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. I personally believe that the FARC needs to be defeated but Colombia cannot do this by themselves. I fear this action may cause many issues for Colombia for a long time.
As if this wasn't enough, Ecuador has managed to get all of South America largely on their side. However, Colombia far from being apologetic has decided that they will take the matter to the International Criminal Court where they will charge Chavez with genocide for his alleged (though probable role) in supporting FARC. The problem with this is that the timing at least (and in all likelihood the charges themselves) is so clearly politically motivated that I don't think the ICC would act. Instead this just drives those who are infuriated over the incident into positions where more is required.
I wish I could say that I was optimistic. But I now fear that this will degrade into some sort of war. Colombia has chosen to be the worst kind of neighbor and in all likelihood this will cause serious problems for a long time. If Colombia is to defeat the FARC, they will need all the help they can get. Making enemies with three of their four neighbors does not seem wise.
FARC has scored an important political victory here in the same way that Hezbullah scored an important victory in the war with Israel last year. They have been given, through ineptness on the part of Uribe, a safe haven, and safe corridors of operation. They have also restricted the amount of aid which will be available to Colombia long-term (largely sealing the fate of the lease of the USAF base at Manta, Ecuador), and set their enemies all alone in the night.
Religion vs Science and Non-Overlapping Magisteria
One of the more interesting arguments I have been in recently is whether scientific epistomology is limited and whether this implies that spiritual truth is somehow separate from scientific truth. The principle of separation has been labeled "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" or NOMA by the Catholic Church and the name has stuck. NOMA has been criticized as suggesting a false coexistance but I would argue that the issues with NOMA are due to both science and religion treading on eachothers' territory.
Of course, I am not a Catholic, or even a Christian. I expect my views here to ruffle quite a few feathers but I have done my best to make my argument solid.
The False Problem with NOMA:
A naive look at NOMA suggests that it is in fact a problematic principle because religions such as the Catholic Church have progressively given more and more of what was historically their domain over to science. Thus it is tempting to see NOMA as a drawn-out surrender where science gets to answer anything it can prove and religion gets to answer the rest. In this view, religion basically is there to offer certainty about things we can't be certain about and hence has no place in a scintific world is due to problems defining spiritual truth among both scientists and religious people.
Science does not Exist in a Vacuum:
Similarly, a lot of people water down science by suggesting that it is somehow fully self-contained, and that data inevitably leads to theory. The basic problem with this view is that the development of theory requires more than just a mathematical review of the data. Scientific theories arise from review of data, and by definition they are falsifiable (if some data is later discovered which disproves the theory) but they also contain elements of the theoritician's world-view beyond simply trying to put the pieces together. I suspect that this is why theoretical physicists who are deeply into phylosophy and spirituality are so well represented in the top tier of their field.
In short, as Werner Heisenberg pointed out, theory is developed by an individual reviewing data and applying ideas which pre-exist the review of the data to them (see "Physics and Philosophy"). I suspect that this was also behind Einstein's proclemation that imagination is more important than knowledge. Science is thus largely an area of applied philosophy where philosophical principles are applied to interpretation of data in the formation of theories much in the same way that engineering applies physics, chemistry, enad the like.
As such, science deprived of non-scientific ideas would also be denied the major breakthroughs that we have seen in every area.
The Limitations of Science:
Science is a methodology for a limited form of natural discovery which can provide some grounding for certain forms of philosophy but lacks any direction of itself-- even the direction of science is dictated by outside ideas as documented above.
Science is at its strongest where reproducible experimentation is possible. It is at most overextended where reproducible experimentation is not possible. For example, science probably cannot say much for certain about otherwise normal people who claim to have witnessed miracles, claim to have been abducted by aliens, etc except that "we don't know." Hence the hard experimental sciences in areas like particle physics and quantum mechanics are where it is strongest, and the soft sciences relating to subjects like psychology are where science is the weakest. In the middle are areas where limited experimentation may be possible but where the bulk of material to work from has to be unearthed-- areas such as paleontology, archeology, and historical linguistics. (Mathematics does not fit into this classification and is probably better described as a branch of deductive logic rather than science.)
Interestingly, what hamstrings scientific psychology is a scientifically valid observation argued first (in the field of modern psychology) by Carl Jung, that humans do not come into the world as blank slates, that we carry with us individual personalities (what he called the "a priori self") from a time before birth. This is observable in that some fetuses are more active than others, and display other behavioral differences as well. Since there is a portion of the psyche which is not reproducible, then you end up with a fundamental problem when looking for reproducible results-- at best results may show up in statistical analysis, but actual experimentation and repeatability is fundamentally limited even excluding ethical concerns.
The Valid Role of Science:
Science represents the best epistomology for seeking an understanding of mechanism of our current natural and (broadly-speaking) historical external world. It also provides more limited insight into older historical elements of the artificial world through archeology, historical linguistics. Finally there is even more limited value in areas such as clinical psychology (psychiatry is something different which is generally grounded in neural science and experimentation and is hence more scientific than clinical psychology).
However, science can never go from mechanism to goal-- it can never tell us what we as a society should value, and can never provide by itself any viable ethical principles (it can provide a method for validating actions we take in support of ethical principles, however).
Science can never be the guide to what is great artwork or music, and I believe it will ever be able to provide guidance for relating to the experience of the divine, which if my understanding of comparitive religion is accurate seems to be a near-universal aspect of the human condition. Science might be able to provide some insight into what makes certain pieces of art great or what the mechanism is in the brain for the sense of the divine, but cannot provide guidance beyond mechanism.
So science must remain concerned only with mechanisms and things which (necessarily spring from mechanism, such as chronology, age, and timing) of the natural and to a lesser extent the psychological and artificial world as well.
The Place of Religion:
If Science limited by its own epistomology, then the question becomes what of religion? Is there a place for religion alongside science and philosophy? I think that this problem, when approached rationally provides ample room to criticize and limit the scope of religious discourse. But I think that when one looks back it is clear that there is a place for religious belief.
The first issue is that religion must give up any claim of authority over mechanism (and hence chronology, age, timing, etc) of the natural world. This means that evolution for example exists in an area where religion has no claim of authority.
Most of the world's religions historically important religions developed at least in large part before the adoption of writing. Walter Ong ("Orality and Literacy") has documented a fundamental shift of thinking which occurs when one moves from oral-tradition-centered cultures to literacy-centered cultures. The literacy shift is, I believe, the core of the cognative shift which lead from the Renaissance to the "Enlightenment." However, as the Abrahamic religions developed in literary societies (including but not limited to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), they have tended to have an emphasis more on the idea of literal truth. It is thus my belief that religion must step back and address issues more along the way that Hinduism or Platonism does-- as metaphores where the Ideas behind must be sought rather than mere simple pronouncements of literal truth.
Religious traditions thus end up being language-like structures for helping us relate to various aspects of our inner and outer world but exists in a way which is fundamentally does not overlap with science and yet provides immeasurable value (perhaps greater value than religions do today). In this view, science and religion could enhance eachother and coexist without conflict and both provide their best to society and eachother.
Ultimately, this means that most religions today must give up more than science, but in my view this is not a surrender but an act where religion refocuses itself on what it is really all about.
