I've noticed a trend of using emojis for CSS classnames.
.🖖🏾-Vg{color:#ff4040}
.🖖🏾VDe{padding:.75rem 0;font-size:1rem}
It makes certain things more difficult. e.g. writing Selenium tests over these pages.
Is there a real benefit to using them? Security? Filesize?
Or are developers just doing this for kicks?
Edit: For the "Close (Opinion Base)" voters. I genuinely want to know if there's a development reason for doing this. I'm not looking for people's opinions here.
Im going to tenatively answer this while trying to not to be too 'Opinion based'
The 'emoji' support is a feature of supporting all Unicode characters, this was to support Chinese charachter support, which makes perfect sense.
As Emojis have been mapped to the Unicode chars, they came out of the wash too.
I have trouble finding legitimate references to bytes saved with emojis in-lieu of another method. So if someone could correct me that would be helpful.
The closest I found was a gitLab document from 2018 which moreso speaks to the performace improvements they saw implementing the native Unicode emojis.
GitLab Emoji Unicode
Appart from anything else though, I have seen some companies throw them into CSS files to attract some 'UI' enthusiasts while browsing the source of a site, for hiring purposes.
Opinion Spoiler - If I saw this in a company content, the last thing I would be doing is applying to work with that.
Final Note
This really is not useful in any practical way, if you are working as part of a team, ask them yourself how they would feel about searching through a source base using an emoji/unicode instead of some readable class/reference.
🥑
Reading Material
Browser Support SO Question
CanIUse Unicode
Unicode Release with Emoji Support
From what I have read from a forum, the reason people use emojis is because it can shave bytes off of files and it is easy to understand.
As far as I know this is not a security thing.
We are having Multiple PDF which have account tables and balance sheet within it. We have tried many Converters but the result is not satisfactory. Can anybody please suggest any good converter that would replicated the contents of PDF to Exact structure in HTML. IF any paid Converter is there please suggest me .
This is the PDF we want to convert and Show in html "http://www.marico.com/html/investor/pdf/Quarterly_Updates/Consolidated%20Financial%20Results%20-%20Q3FY11.pdf"
Have you looked into this? http://pdftohtml.sourceforge.net/
It's open source as well, so it's free and can be modified if necessary.
There's even a demo showing the before PDF and the after HTML version. Not bad if you ask me.
If you're having issues specifically with tables in PDFs, perhaps the issue are the table themselves and whatever program is being used to generate them. Not all PDFs are created equal.
ALSO: Be aware that all PDFs that I've created and come across over the years have had lots of issues when it comes to copy/pasting blocks/lines of text that have other blocks/lines of text at equal or higher height on any given page. I think Acrobat lacks the ability to define a "sequence order" of what block is selected after what (or most programs don't use it properly), so the system sorta moves from a top-down, left-to-right way of selecting content.....even if that means jumping over large blank areas or grabbing lines from multiple columns at once when you wouldn't expect it. This may be part of your tabular data issue. Your weak link here is the PDF format itself and I think perhaps you may be expecting too much from it. Turning anything into a PDF is pretty much a one-way street, especially when you start putting lots of editable text into it.
Have you tried http://www.jpedal.org/html_index.php - there is also a free online version
I'm writing a Web application and I'm experiencing some troubles with the newLine chars.
My application allows create posts (like a forum) with the Markdown language. So it's plain text, not HTML.
Suppose that I create a post in Linux and then, I try to edit it in a Windows machine.
The new line chars are not respected. Do you know why? I thought that this was a problem already solved by the browsers...
How is the best way to suppport editing in a textarea in a multiplatform way?
EDIT: I cannot reproduce the problem in Chrome and Firefox, only in Internet Explorer.
The question is, how are you storing input from that textarea.
There could be many solutions, but to make it work multiplatform, I would suggest replacing newline chars with something more static (like 0x0A, or other html entity), before storing in database. Afterwards, when it is retrived, you can replace back, to whatever you need.
I have hundreds of .doc files with text that I need put on web pages.
I realize I could convert every .doc file to .txt, then use a server side include to embed the contents of each page into a webpage. This would save a lot of time because I could simply have one .php?txt=... page which will display a different .txt include depending on the link the user pressed to get there. This works perfectly content-wise.
However, all formatting is lost when it is converted to .txt (titles should be in bold)
When I convert these .doc files to .html using Microsoft Word, the ~20 line documents become bloated >300 line .htm files (probably because each paragraph is put into textboxes)
Dreamweaver's "Clean up Word HTML" helped a bit but the code was still extremely bloated.
How would you suggest going about this?
edit: I may have solved my own question, trying to embed Google docs into my page.
There is a program suite called wv (former mswordview). It has a program wvWare. This software can transform Word documents to HTML.
Furthermore you can use the output from Word and send it through tidy. This corrects markup and usually can handle the mistakes made by Word.
You can try converting the Word documents to a DocBook intermediate format, then you can easily transform the DocBook with existing tools to (X)HTML.
MS Word is bloatware. Its own markup is bloated, and therefore any attempt to automatically convert it to HTML will inherit these problems. You end up with garbage like: <strong><strong></strong></strong> for no good reason.
Dreamweaver can clean it up a lot, but nothing short of strip/remarkup is going to get you clean results.
That's why most people use PDFs for this type of issue.
My immediate reaction would be to convert the docs to PDFs. That will normally preserve formatting quite well, and users typically have their browsers set up to view PDFs one way or another (and the few who don't are undoubtedly accustomed to being unable to view a lot of documents on a lot of sites).
Alright thanks everyone for your suggestions, but I wanted to make this page accessible to everyone without pdf viewers as well.
Google docs allows you to bulk upload your text files (and converts them for you too)
You can then export them into an iframe to embed in any html document.
In my Delphi program I want to display some information generated by the application. Nothing fancy, just 2 columns of text with parts of words color-coded.
I think I basically have two options:
HTML in a TWebbrowser
RTF in a TRichEdit.
HTML is more standard, but seems to load slower, and I had to deal with The Annoying Click Sound.
Is RTF still a good alternative these days?
Note: The documents will be discarded after viewing.
I would vote for HTML.
I think it is more future oriented. The speed would not concern me.
The question of HTML or RTF may be irrelevant. If they are just used for display purposes, then the file format doesn't matter. It's really just an internal representation. (Are any files even being saved to disk?) I think the question to ask is which one solves the problem with the least amount of work.
I would be slightly concerned that the browser control is changing all the time. I doubt the richedit control will change much. I would lean towards the richedit control because I think there is less that could go wrong with it. But it's probably not a big deal either way.
Have you considered doing an ownerdraw TListView?
I'd also use HTML. Besides, you just got an answer for the clicking sound in TWebBrowser.
If you'd rather not use TWebBrowser, take a look at Dave Baldwin's free HTML Display Components.
I would vote for HTML, too.
We started an app a while ago...
We wanted to
display some information generated by the application. Nothing fancy, just...
(do you hear the bells ring???)
Then we wanted to display more information and style it even more....
...someone decided, that RTF isn't enough anymore, but for backwards compatibility we moved on to MS Word over OLE-Server. That was the end of talking about performance anymore.
I think if we would have done that in HTML it would be much faster now.
RTF is much easier to deal with, as the TRichEdit control is part of every single Windows installation, and has much less overhead than TWebBrowser (which is basically embedding an ActiveX version of Internet Explorer into your app).
TRichEdit is also much easier to use to programmatically add text and formatting. Using the SelStart and SelLength, along with the text Attributes, makes adding bolding and italics, setting different fonts, etc. simple. And, as Re0sless said, TRichEdit can easily be printed while TWebBrowser makes it more complicated to do so.
I would vote RTF as I dont like the fact TWebBrowser uses Internet explorer, as we have had trouble with this in the past on tightly locked down computers.
Also TRichEdit has a print method build in, where as you have to do all sorts of messing about to get the TWebBrowser to print.
Nobody seems to have mentioned a reporting component yet. Yes, it is overkill right now, but if you use it anyway (and maybe you already have got some reporting to do in your app, so the component is already included) you can just display the preview and allow to print / export to pdf later, if it makes any sense. Also if you later decide that you want to have a fancier display there is nothing holding you back.
If both HTML and RTF won't satisfy your need, you could also use an open source text/edit component that supports coloring words or create your own edit component based on a Delphi component.
Another alternative to the HTML browser is the "Embedded Web Browser" components which I used a few projects for displaying html documents to the user. You have complete control over the embedded browser, and I don't recall any clicks when a page is loaded.
I vote for HTML also
RTF is good only for its editor, else then you'd better go standard.
RTF offers some useful text editing options like horizontal tabulator which are not available in HTML. Automatic hyperlink detection is also a nice extra. But I think I would prefer HTML, if these features are not required.
I vote for HTML.
Easier to generate programmatically.
Widely supported.
Since you don't need WYSIWYG capabilities I think HTML advantages trump RTF. Moreover, should the need to export generated data for further, WP-like editing arise, remember that major word processor can open and convert HTML files.
Use HTML, but with 'Delphi Wrapper for Chromium Embedded' by Henri Gourvest , Chromium embedded uses the core that powers Google Chrome.
Don't use TWebBrowser, I'm suffering from all programs that use IE's web control - the font is too small on my 22' monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution, I use Windows 7 and my system's DPI is 150% (XP mode), I tried everything to tweak trying to fix that, no luck...