<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_1350232</id>
	<title>Google To Promote Web Speed On New Dev Site</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245853080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"Google has <a href="http://code.google.com/speed/articles/">created a Web site for developers</a> that is focused exclusively on <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134736">making Web applications, sites and browsers faster</a>. The site will allow developers to submit ideas, suggestions and questions via a discussion forum and by using Google's Moderator tool. Google hopes developers will join it in improving core online technologies such as HTML and TCP/IP. For Google, a prime example of how Web performance can be enhanced is the <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/html-5-could-it-kill-flash-and-silverlight-291">development of HTML 5</a>, which provides a major improvement in how Web applications process Javascript, Google believes. 'We're hoping the community will spend some time on the basic protocols of the Internet,' Google product manager Richard Rabbat said. 'There's quite a bit of optimization that can be done [in that area].'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Google has created a Web site for developers that is focused exclusively on making Web applications , sites and browsers faster .
The site will allow developers to submit ideas , suggestions and questions via a discussion forum and by using Google 's Moderator tool .
Google hopes developers will join it in improving core online technologies such as HTML and TCP/IP .
For Google , a prime example of how Web performance can be enhanced is the development of HTML 5 , which provides a major improvement in how Web applications process Javascript , Google believes .
'We 're hoping the community will spend some time on the basic protocols of the Internet, ' Google product manager Richard Rabbat said .
'There 's quite a bit of optimization that can be done [ in that area ] .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Google has created a Web site for developers that is focused exclusively on making Web applications, sites and browsers faster.
The site will allow developers to submit ideas, suggestions and questions via a discussion forum and by using Google's Moderator tool.
Google hopes developers will join it in improving core online technologies such as HTML and TCP/IP.
For Google, a prime example of how Web performance can be enhanced is the development of HTML 5, which provides a major improvement in how Web applications process Javascript, Google believes.
'We're hoping the community will spend some time on the basic protocols of the Internet,' Google product manager Richard Rabbat said.
'There's quite a bit of optimization that can be done [in that area].
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28458513</id>
	<title>new (old) file formats still needed</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1245837180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened to JPEG2000? (Patent problems?)</p><p>SVG should've been here long ago. IE will continue to slow SVG adoption in the real world.</p><p>If we could get JPEG2000 (or something like it) and SVG in 95+\% of browsers, I think we'd be golden. That and getting rid of IE6 with its broken box model (among many other problems), would go a long way towards modernizing the Web. Take HTML5 and add the top 10 features or so of CSS3, and it's party-time for web devs once again. MS needs to shit or get off the pot with IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to JPEG2000 ?
( Patent problems ?
) SVG should 've been here long ago .
IE will continue to slow SVG adoption in the real world.If we could get JPEG2000 ( or something like it ) and SVG in 95 + \ % of browsers , I think we 'd be golden .
That and getting rid of IE6 with its broken box model ( among many other problems ) , would go a long way towards modernizing the Web .
Take HTML5 and add the top 10 features or so of CSS3 , and it 's party-time for web devs once again .
MS needs to shit or get off the pot with IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to JPEG2000?
(Patent problems?
)SVG should've been here long ago.
IE will continue to slow SVG adoption in the real world.If we could get JPEG2000 (or something like it) and SVG in 95+\% of browsers, I think we'd be golden.
That and getting rid of IE6 with its broken box model (among many other problems), would go a long way towards modernizing the Web.
Take HTML5 and add the top 10 features or so of CSS3, and it's party-time for web devs once again.
MS needs to shit or get off the pot with IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453439</id>
	<title>Re:Just write a native client-side app</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1245862380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and shouldn't be used as such.</p> </div><p>Developers use the best tool for the job and (sadly) Web apps are more functional and useful to people than native clients in many instances.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Yes I realise that for n00bs its all about the convenience of web apps but client-side apps need not be inconvenient. Look at the iPhone app store, n00bs love it and its full of client-server applications.</p> </div><p>This is part of an interesting shift in computer technology. Mainly it is the shift to portable computing owned by the user. This contrasts with work provided computers controlled by them and public terminals. When you want to check your personal e-mail at work, using your work provided desktop, well a Web application is really convenient. When you want to check your personal e-mail at work and you own an iPhone, the game changes. When you want to check your personal e-mail at home, using the same thing you do at work is convenient.</p><p>Further, Web applications are cross platform. They work on all the different versions of Windows and OS X and Linux and anything else and you don't have to pay for and separately install the program on each device. You don't have to learn separate interfaces on each device. You don't have to worry about synching data. The truth is, Microsoft has a lot of power and they've spent the last decade trying to prevent easy cross-platform computing and serving as a road block to anything that might make the Web a more important chunk of computing than their OS. With the OS market so broken the Web is an attempt by the free market to route around the damage.</p><p>As I see it the fight between Web applications and native applications depends upon how the market/ecosystem evolves. As alternative devices and OS's like the iPhone, blackberry, Linux netbooks, OS X computers, etc. become more popular we'll see a shift back towards native applications. However, at the same time if Web technologies move forward in actual implementation and IE loses market share (which will accompany a shift towards the aforementioned devices) the Web will become a better medium for delivering useful applications and it will become an easier target for developers. We could see an alternative cross platform development strategy become dominant, such as Java or other VMs, but it is doubtful since MS will do everything they can to block such a technology and they still have a lot of power. More likely we'll see hybrid applications/services like the ones Google promotes. Send e-mail or chat via standard services through their Web interface when convenient or use a native client when you have access to a device you control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and should n't be used as such .
Developers use the best tool for the job and ( sadly ) Web apps are more functional and useful to people than native clients in many instances .
Yes I realise that for n00bs its all about the convenience of web apps but client-side apps need not be inconvenient .
Look at the iPhone app store , n00bs love it and its full of client-server applications .
This is part of an interesting shift in computer technology .
Mainly it is the shift to portable computing owned by the user .
This contrasts with work provided computers controlled by them and public terminals .
When you want to check your personal e-mail at work , using your work provided desktop , well a Web application is really convenient .
When you want to check your personal e-mail at work and you own an iPhone , the game changes .
When you want to check your personal e-mail at home , using the same thing you do at work is convenient.Further , Web applications are cross platform .
They work on all the different versions of Windows and OS X and Linux and anything else and you do n't have to pay for and separately install the program on each device .
You do n't have to learn separate interfaces on each device .
You do n't have to worry about synching data .
The truth is , Microsoft has a lot of power and they 've spent the last decade trying to prevent easy cross-platform computing and serving as a road block to anything that might make the Web a more important chunk of computing than their OS .
With the OS market so broken the Web is an attempt by the free market to route around the damage.As I see it the fight between Web applications and native applications depends upon how the market/ecosystem evolves .
As alternative devices and OS 's like the iPhone , blackberry , Linux netbooks , OS X computers , etc .
become more popular we 'll see a shift back towards native applications .
However , at the same time if Web technologies move forward in actual implementation and IE loses market share ( which will accompany a shift towards the aforementioned devices ) the Web will become a better medium for delivering useful applications and it will become an easier target for developers .
We could see an alternative cross platform development strategy become dominant , such as Java or other VMs , but it is doubtful since MS will do everything they can to block such a technology and they still have a lot of power .
More likely we 'll see hybrid applications/services like the ones Google promotes .
Send e-mail or chat via standard services through their Web interface when convenient or use a native client when you have access to a device you control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and shouldn't be used as such.
Developers use the best tool for the job and (sadly) Web apps are more functional and useful to people than native clients in many instances.
Yes I realise that for n00bs its all about the convenience of web apps but client-side apps need not be inconvenient.
Look at the iPhone app store, n00bs love it and its full of client-server applications.
This is part of an interesting shift in computer technology.
Mainly it is the shift to portable computing owned by the user.
This contrasts with work provided computers controlled by them and public terminals.
When you want to check your personal e-mail at work, using your work provided desktop, well a Web application is really convenient.
When you want to check your personal e-mail at work and you own an iPhone, the game changes.
When you want to check your personal e-mail at home, using the same thing you do at work is convenient.Further, Web applications are cross platform.
They work on all the different versions of Windows and OS X and Linux and anything else and you don't have to pay for and separately install the program on each device.
You don't have to learn separate interfaces on each device.
You don't have to worry about synching data.
The truth is, Microsoft has a lot of power and they've spent the last decade trying to prevent easy cross-platform computing and serving as a road block to anything that might make the Web a more important chunk of computing than their OS.
With the OS market so broken the Web is an attempt by the free market to route around the damage.As I see it the fight between Web applications and native applications depends upon how the market/ecosystem evolves.
As alternative devices and OS's like the iPhone, blackberry, Linux netbooks, OS X computers, etc.
become more popular we'll see a shift back towards native applications.
However, at the same time if Web technologies move forward in actual implementation and IE loses market share (which will accompany a shift towards the aforementioned devices) the Web will become a better medium for delivering useful applications and it will become an easier target for developers.
We could see an alternative cross platform development strategy become dominant, such as Java or other VMs, but it is doubtful since MS will do everything they can to block such a technology and they still have a lot of power.
More likely we'll see hybrid applications/services like the ones Google promotes.
Send e-mail or chat via standard services through their Web interface when convenient or use a native client when you have access to a device you control.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452461</id>
	<title>mod xUp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">bought pth3 farm... volume of NetBSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>bought pth3 farm... volume of NetBSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bought pth3 farm... volume of NetBSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452315</id>
	<title>Those Google engineers sure are a sexy bunch!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why oh why was this in video format?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why oh why was this in video format ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why oh why was this in video format?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453615</id>
	<title>Opera Unite - resourcefetcher.js</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was having a look over Opera Unite services when looking to write one of my own, and i noticed this handy little function.</p><p>It fetches all the external page objects after the initial page has loaded.<br>Sadly, the example (homepage) failed in the sense that the basic CSS was not always the first thing to be loaded, which resulted in buckled pages on tests for slow upload speeds. (and some things weren't obviously clickable objects before images were loaded in)</p><p>So, in this way, an initial page could be loaded that is, at a minimum, <i>functional</i>, then load in all the fancy-shmancy stuff if they have JavaScript enabled.<br>I would love to see more people take advantage of that since a good deal of the time, websites are sitting there loading loads of crap that end up going unnoticed anyway.<br>Always always always load the most important stuff first.  But sadly, "most important" has gone from page content to stupid sponsor stuff, crappy flash ads, useless headers that take up an eighth of the screen, shiny flowing menus, etc.  (some of these being the reason i want Flash to die a painful death since it is one of the major causes of slowdown, DEATH TO PLUGINS!)</p><p><b>off-topic</b><br>Also, i am loving the way Unite services are created so far.<br>JavaScript, HTML, CSS and XML, none of that PHP, or Python or anything else, just all native browser technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was having a look over Opera Unite services when looking to write one of my own , and i noticed this handy little function.It fetches all the external page objects after the initial page has loaded.Sadly , the example ( homepage ) failed in the sense that the basic CSS was not always the first thing to be loaded , which resulted in buckled pages on tests for slow upload speeds .
( and some things were n't obviously clickable objects before images were loaded in ) So , in this way , an initial page could be loaded that is , at a minimum , functional , then load in all the fancy-shmancy stuff if they have JavaScript enabled.I would love to see more people take advantage of that since a good deal of the time , websites are sitting there loading loads of crap that end up going unnoticed anyway.Always always always load the most important stuff first .
But sadly , " most important " has gone from page content to stupid sponsor stuff , crappy flash ads , useless headers that take up an eighth of the screen , shiny flowing menus , etc .
( some of these being the reason i want Flash to die a painful death since it is one of the major causes of slowdown , DEATH TO PLUGINS !
) off-topicAlso , i am loving the way Unite services are created so far.JavaScript , HTML , CSS and XML , none of that PHP , or Python or anything else , just all native browser technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was having a look over Opera Unite services when looking to write one of my own, and i noticed this handy little function.It fetches all the external page objects after the initial page has loaded.Sadly, the example (homepage) failed in the sense that the basic CSS was not always the first thing to be loaded, which resulted in buckled pages on tests for slow upload speeds.
(and some things weren't obviously clickable objects before images were loaded in)So, in this way, an initial page could be loaded that is, at a minimum, functional, then load in all the fancy-shmancy stuff if they have JavaScript enabled.I would love to see more people take advantage of that since a good deal of the time, websites are sitting there loading loads of crap that end up going unnoticed anyway.Always always always load the most important stuff first.
But sadly, "most important" has gone from page content to stupid sponsor stuff, crappy flash ads, useless headers that take up an eighth of the screen, shiny flowing menus, etc.
(some of these being the reason i want Flash to die a painful death since it is one of the major causes of slowdown, DEATH TO PLUGINS!
)off-topicAlso, i am loving the way Unite services are created so far.JavaScript, HTML, CSS and XML, none of that PHP, or Python or anything else, just all native browser technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28455095</id>
	<title>PHP advice legitimity</title>
	<author>Benbrizzi</author>
	<datestamp>1245868080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no PHP guru, but reading some of their advice on PHP made me flinch.<p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Don't copy variables for no reason.</b> <br>
<br>
Sometimes PHP novices attempt to make their code "cleaner" by copying predefined variables to variables with shorter names. What this actually results in is doubled memory consumption, and therefore, slow scripts. In the following example, imagine if a malicious user had inserted 512KB worth of characters into a textarea field. This would result in 1MB of memory being used!<br>
<br>
BAD:<br>
$description = $\_POST['description'];<br>
echo $description;<br>
<br>
GOOD:<br>
echo $\_POST['description'];</p> </div><p>
Now I would never question the almighty Google, but the Rasmus Lerdorf taught me that PHP uses copy-on-write.

Quoting from his O'Reilly <i>Programming PHP</i> book:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When you copy a value from one variable to another, PHP doesn't get more memory for a copy of the value. Instead, it updates the symbol table to say "both of these variables are names for the same chunk of memory."</p></div><p>So who's right? I tend to believe M. Lerdorf since he pretty much invented PHP but like I said before I'm not an expert and my book is pretty old so (PHP 4.1.0) so maybe that has changed since (although I doubt it)...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no PHP guru , but reading some of their advice on PHP made me flinch .
Do n't copy variables for no reason .
Sometimes PHP novices attempt to make their code " cleaner " by copying predefined variables to variables with shorter names .
What this actually results in is doubled memory consumption , and therefore , slow scripts .
In the following example , imagine if a malicious user had inserted 512KB worth of characters into a textarea field .
This would result in 1MB of memory being used !
BAD : $ description = $ \ _POST [ 'description ' ] ; echo $ description ; GOOD : echo $ \ _POST [ 'description ' ] ; Now I would never question the almighty Google , but the Rasmus Lerdorf taught me that PHP uses copy-on-write .
Quoting from his O'Reilly Programming PHP book : When you copy a value from one variable to another , PHP does n't get more memory for a copy of the value .
Instead , it updates the symbol table to say " both of these variables are names for the same chunk of memory .
" So who 's right ?
I tend to believe M. Lerdorf since he pretty much invented PHP but like I said before I 'm not an expert and my book is pretty old so ( PHP 4.1.0 ) so maybe that has changed since ( although I doubt it ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no PHP guru, but reading some of their advice on PHP made me flinch.
Don't copy variables for no reason.
Sometimes PHP novices attempt to make their code "cleaner" by copying predefined variables to variables with shorter names.
What this actually results in is doubled memory consumption, and therefore, slow scripts.
In the following example, imagine if a malicious user had inserted 512KB worth of characters into a textarea field.
This would result in 1MB of memory being used!
BAD:
$description = $\_POST['description'];
echo $description;

GOOD:
echo $\_POST['description']; 
Now I would never question the almighty Google, but the Rasmus Lerdorf taught me that PHP uses copy-on-write.
Quoting from his O'Reilly Programming PHP book:When you copy a value from one variable to another, PHP doesn't get more memory for a copy of the value.
Instead, it updates the symbol table to say "both of these variables are names for the same chunk of memory.
"So who's right?
I tend to believe M. Lerdorf since he pretty much invented PHP but like I said before I'm not an expert and my book is pretty old so (PHP 4.1.0) so maybe that has changed since (although I doubt it)...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452843</id>
	<title>Re:Why Do They Ignore Their Own Advice?</title>
	<author>asylumx</author>
	<datestamp>1245860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most sites have gzip set up on their outbound transfers.  Seems like gzip would eliminate a lot of these duplicate tags -- unless they are suggesting that gzip itself is slowing the entire process down?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most sites have gzip set up on their outbound transfers .
Seems like gzip would eliminate a lot of these duplicate tags -- unless they are suggesting that gzip itself is slowing the entire process down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most sites have gzip set up on their outbound transfers.
Seems like gzip would eliminate a lot of these duplicate tags -- unless they are suggesting that gzip itself is slowing the entire process down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452901</id>
	<title>Yahoo has a good page, too</title>
	<author>JBL2</author>
	<datestamp>1245860400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo! has a handy page (<a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/</a> [yahoo.com]) with lots of good info.  It includes YSlow (a Firefox add-on), a set of "Best Practices," and some good research. Also references a couple of O'Reilly books (which, to be fair, I haven't read).</p><p>More specifically, CSS sprites (see <a href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/" title="alistapart.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/</a> [alistapart.com]) and consolidating Javascript may be back (reducing HTTP requests), and a few other things that may surprise or inform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo !
has a handy page ( http : //developer.yahoo.com/performance/ [ yahoo.com ] ) with lots of good info .
It includes YSlow ( a Firefox add-on ) , a set of " Best Practices , " and some good research .
Also references a couple of O'Reilly books ( which , to be fair , I have n't read ) .More specifically , CSS sprites ( see http : //www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/ [ alistapart.com ] ) and consolidating Javascript may be back ( reducing HTTP requests ) , and a few other things that may surprise or inform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo!
has a handy page (http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/ [yahoo.com]) with lots of good info.
It includes YSlow (a Firefox add-on), a set of "Best Practices," and some good research.
Also references a couple of O'Reilly books (which, to be fair, I haven't read).More specifically, CSS sprites (see http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/ [alistapart.com]) and consolidating Javascript may be back (reducing HTTP requests), and a few other things that may surprise or inform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452277</id>
	<title>Google--look to your own failings first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the ideas are good, I'd be more impressed if they fixed their own timewasters.</p><p>For example, the search function for google groups (That's the history of the internet, since 1983, from long before the WWW). It's been broken for almost 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the ideas are good , I 'd be more impressed if they fixed their own timewasters.For example , the search function for google groups ( That 's the history of the internet , since 1983 , from long before the WWW ) .
It 's been broken for almost 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the ideas are good, I'd be more impressed if they fixed their own timewasters.For example, the search function for google groups (That's the history of the internet, since 1983, from long before the WWW).
It's been broken for almost 2 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453839</id>
	<title>Re:What's that sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245863820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes PHP novices attempt to make their code "cleaner" by copying predefined variables to variables with shorter names. What this actually results in is doubled memory consumption, and therefore, slow scripts.</p></div><p>It seems to me that this is a flaw in the PHP interpreter, not the PHP programmer.  The way I see it, the interpreter should be lazily copying data in this case.  In other words, the "copy" should be a pointer to the original variable until the script calls for the copy to be changed.  At that point the variable should be copied and changed.  I believe this is how Python handles assignments, and I'm surprised that PHP does not do it the same way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Sometimes PHP novices attempt to make their code " cleaner " by copying predefined variables to variables with shorter names .
What this actually results in is doubled memory consumption , and therefore , slow scripts.It seems to me that this is a flaw in the PHP interpreter , not the PHP programmer .
The way I see it , the interpreter should be lazily copying data in this case .
In other words , the " copy " should be a pointer to the original variable until the script calls for the copy to be changed .
At that point the variable should be copied and changed .
I believe this is how Python handles assignments , and I 'm surprised that PHP does not do it the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Sometimes PHP novices attempt to make their code "cleaner" by copying predefined variables to variables with shorter names.
What this actually results in is doubled memory consumption, and therefore, slow scripts.It seems to me that this is a flaw in the PHP interpreter, not the PHP programmer.
The way I see it, the interpreter should be lazily copying data in this case.
In other words, the "copy" should be a pointer to the original variable until the script calls for the copy to be changed.
At that point the variable should be copied and changed.
I believe this is how Python handles assignments, and I'm surprised that PHP does not do it the same way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452301</id>
	<title>My immediate thought ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>making <b>Web</b> applications, <b>sites</b> and browsers <b>faster</b>.</p></div><p>Anybody up for sending the Slashdot developers there?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>making Web applications , sites and browsers faster.Anybody up for sending the Slashdot developers there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>making Web applications, sites and browsers faster.Anybody up for sending the Slashdot developers there?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452501</id>
	<title>Just write a native client-side app</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and shouldn't be used as such. We spent all these years upgrading to the latest Core 2 Trio so we could make the internet connection the new bottleneck. <br> <br>

Yes I realise that for n00bs its all about the convenience of web apps but client-side apps need not be inconvenient. Look at the iPhone app store, n00bs love it and its full of client-server applications. If there was something like it for Windows and OS X we'd never need to work with a horrible "web application" ever again. Linux doesn't need any, package managers could do with a bit more eye-candy and buttons with round edges  for n00bs but for the rest its fine.<br> <br>

I'm all for optimising web pages but one should focus on minimalism, only use AJAX in cases where it actually saves bandwidth rather than using it for useless playthings. Use a CSS compressor, gzip compression, strip out useless eye-candy and effects, use as little javascript as you can get away with. <br> <br>

Modern web design thrives on feature-creep and making one's own site look better (and more bloated) than the competitor's. The web devs have a skewed perception of how long it takes to load because most of them are using decent machines and accessing the server through 192.168.1.x</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and should n't be used as such .
We spent all these years upgrading to the latest Core 2 Trio so we could make the internet connection the new bottleneck .
Yes I realise that for n00bs its all about the convenience of web apps but client-side apps need not be inconvenient .
Look at the iPhone app store , n00bs love it and its full of client-server applications .
If there was something like it for Windows and OS X we 'd never need to work with a horrible " web application " ever again .
Linux does n't need any , package managers could do with a bit more eye-candy and buttons with round edges for n00bs but for the rest its fine .
I 'm all for optimising web pages but one should focus on minimalism , only use AJAX in cases where it actually saves bandwidth rather than using it for useless playthings .
Use a CSS compressor , gzip compression , strip out useless eye-candy and effects , use as little javascript as you can get away with .
Modern web design thrives on feature-creep and making one 's own site look better ( and more bloated ) than the competitor 's .
The web devs have a skewed perception of how long it takes to load because most of them are using decent machines and accessing the server through 192.168.1.x</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and shouldn't be used as such.
We spent all these years upgrading to the latest Core 2 Trio so we could make the internet connection the new bottleneck.
Yes I realise that for n00bs its all about the convenience of web apps but client-side apps need not be inconvenient.
Look at the iPhone app store, n00bs love it and its full of client-server applications.
If there was something like it for Windows and OS X we'd never need to work with a horrible "web application" ever again.
Linux doesn't need any, package managers could do with a bit more eye-candy and buttons with round edges  for n00bs but for the rest its fine.
I'm all for optimising web pages but one should focus on minimalism, only use AJAX in cases where it actually saves bandwidth rather than using it for useless playthings.
Use a CSS compressor, gzip compression, strip out useless eye-candy and effects, use as little javascript as you can get away with.
Modern web design thrives on feature-creep and making one's own site look better (and more bloated) than the competitor's.
The web devs have a skewed perception of how long it takes to load because most of them are using decent machines and accessing the server through 192.168.1.x</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454453</id>
	<title>Re:C'mon slashdot, get working</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would be the irony? That a site with pages slow as molasses can take out a site about optimized HTML? Well, it can't. Get working indeed, on Slashcode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be the irony ?
That a site with pages slow as molasses can take out a site about optimized HTML ?
Well , it ca n't .
Get working indeed , on Slashcode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be the irony?
That a site with pages slow as molasses can take out a site about optimized HTML?
Well, it can't.
Get working indeed, on Slashcode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28482759</id>
	<title>Re:PHP advice legitimity</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1246031880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PHP takes something from FORTRAN? *head explodes in acid trip*</htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP takes something from FORTRAN ?
* head explodes in acid trip *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP takes something from FORTRAN?
*head explodes in acid trip*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28455095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454375</id>
	<title>Don't discard any information!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm very wary of anything lossy, or compiled, or anything that "strips out useless parts" of the HTML. HTML, javascript, etc is great because it is open and largely human-readable, anyone who downloads it can also analyze the code. This makes it safer, more controllable, and more understandable, at least for the end user. If anything is to be done about the size of the download it should be some sort of lossless compression algorithm optimized for HTML/javascript/etc. If the process is not fully reversible on the user's end, I think it will ultimately be harmful to the internet.</p><p>Just think how hard it would be to block ads if each page was a compiled program instead of human-readable code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very wary of anything lossy , or compiled , or anything that " strips out useless parts " of the HTML .
HTML , javascript , etc is great because it is open and largely human-readable , anyone who downloads it can also analyze the code .
This makes it safer , more controllable , and more understandable , at least for the end user .
If anything is to be done about the size of the download it should be some sort of lossless compression algorithm optimized for HTML/javascript/etc .
If the process is not fully reversible on the user 's end , I think it will ultimately be harmful to the internet.Just think how hard it would be to block ads if each page was a compiled program instead of human-readable code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very wary of anything lossy, or compiled, or anything that "strips out useless parts" of the HTML.
HTML, javascript, etc is great because it is open and largely human-readable, anyone who downloads it can also analyze the code.
This makes it safer, more controllable, and more understandable, at least for the end user.
If anything is to be done about the size of the download it should be some sort of lossless compression algorithm optimized for HTML/javascript/etc.
If the process is not fully reversible on the user's end, I think it will ultimately be harmful to the internet.Just think how hard it would be to block ads if each page was a compiled program instead of human-readable code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28462407</id>
	<title>Re:Some very slow sites: Slashdot and Facebook</title>
	<author>WebmasterNeal</author>
	<datestamp>1245860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at these lovely stats from my Facebook profile:
<br> <br>
Documents (3 files)	   7 KB (592 KB uncompressed)<br>
Images (111 files)	   215 KB<br>
Objects (1 file)	           701 bytes<br>
Scripts (27 files)	           321 KB (1102 KB uncompressed)<br>
Style Sheets (12 files)   69 KB (303 KB uncompressed)<br>
Total	613 KB                (2213 KB uncompressed)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at these lovely stats from my Facebook profile : Documents ( 3 files ) 7 KB ( 592 KB uncompressed ) Images ( 111 files ) 215 KB Objects ( 1 file ) 701 bytes Scripts ( 27 files ) 321 KB ( 1102 KB uncompressed ) Style Sheets ( 12 files ) 69 KB ( 303 KB uncompressed ) Total 613 KB ( 2213 KB uncompressed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at these lovely stats from my Facebook profile:
 
Documents (3 files)	   7 KB (592 KB uncompressed)
Images (111 files)	   215 KB
Objects (1 file)	           701 bytes
Scripts (27 files)	           321 KB (1102 KB uncompressed)
Style Sheets (12 files)   69 KB (303 KB uncompressed)
Total	613 KB                (2213 KB uncompressed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28458053</id>
	<title>Re:external resources in HTML pages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One advantage of using a common external script is that if the user has already visited another site using it, then it's already in their browser's cache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One advantage of using a common external script is that if the user has already visited another site using it , then it 's already in their browser 's cache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One advantage of using a common external script is that if the user has already visited another site using it, then it's already in their browser's cache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28467585</id>
	<title>Before speed we need Mail to be fixed</title>
	<author>Conficio</author>
	<datestamp>1245950400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I myself waist the most time on the Internet with Spam. So lets fix the most annoying things first.</p><p>Start signing your e-mail so I can filter on a reliable source where it comes from and use the web of trust to indicate if I have any 'remote' trust relationship to the sender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I myself waist the most time on the Internet with Spam .
So lets fix the most annoying things first.Start signing your e-mail so I can filter on a reliable source where it comes from and use the web of trust to indicate if I have any 'remote ' trust relationship to the sender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I myself waist the most time on the Internet with Spam.
So lets fix the most annoying things first.Start signing your e-mail so I can filter on a reliable source where it comes from and use the web of trust to indicate if I have any 'remote' trust relationship to the sender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28456407</id>
	<title>Double-buffering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245872580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hypercard used to have this handy feature - prior to making any big changes, you could call 'lock screen', then mess with the display to your heart's content, then 'unlock screen' (optionally with pretty transition effects).  Maybe what we need is something similar - let's face it, most large web sites are fairly unusable when they're loading, as they get randomly reformatted as various resources get loaded and start messing with the page.</p><p>Simple double-buffering primitives would allow smooth loading, and probably speed things up a lot as the browser could suppress unnecessary redraws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypercard used to have this handy feature - prior to making any big changes , you could call 'lock screen ' , then mess with the display to your heart 's content , then 'unlock screen ' ( optionally with pretty transition effects ) .
Maybe what we need is something similar - let 's face it , most large web sites are fairly unusable when they 're loading , as they get randomly reformatted as various resources get loaded and start messing with the page.Simple double-buffering primitives would allow smooth loading , and probably speed things up a lot as the browser could suppress unnecessary redraws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypercard used to have this handy feature - prior to making any big changes, you could call 'lock screen', then mess with the display to your heart's content, then 'unlock screen' (optionally with pretty transition effects).
Maybe what we need is something similar - let's face it, most large web sites are fairly unusable when they're loading, as they get randomly reformatted as various resources get loaded and start messing with the page.Simple double-buffering primitives would allow smooth loading, and probably speed things up a lot as the browser could suppress unnecessary redraws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454131</id>
	<title>smod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">walk up to a play do, and with any fear the reaper clear she couldn't discussions on hobbyist dil3ttante Else to be an a full-time GNAA</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>walk up to a play do , and with any fear the reaper clear she could n't discussions on hobbyist dil3ttante Else to be an a full-time GNAA [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>walk up to a play do, and with any fear the reaper clear she couldn't discussions on hobbyist dil3ttante Else to be an a full-time GNAA [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28459767</id>
	<title>Be nice to dig in.</title>
	<author>Gagek</author>
	<datestamp>1245842460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im excited about this, been working on a site Impostor Magazine and been using flex and different tools... nice to have a place to play and test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im excited about this , been working on a site Impostor Magazine and been using flex and different tools... nice to have a place to play and test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im excited about this, been working on a site Impostor Magazine and been using flex and different tools... nice to have a place to play and test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454591</id>
	<title>If only JavaScript history was different.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only it wasn't being blocked by so many people because of the abuse by other peolpe, who were really abusing the fact that most browsers that have JavaScript support were designed so terribly, the world wide web would have been so much better than the crap we see today.</p><p>But no, we have websites designed around spamming new windows and alert boxes on all of them.<br>THANKS WEB BROWSERS VENDORS, WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YA'.<br>All of them are to blame, every damn one of them.<br>And i blame Mozilla more for the fact that THEY never done a damn thing to change the rules.<br><b>Fuck W3C</b>, why the fuck does anyone even listen to them anymore?  They ruined the web time and time again, and STILL ARE.  They have shown many times that they are incapable of deciding what is good for the web.</p><p>Google, while they are doing things, are only doing it because they want browsers to catch up with things like the terribly optimized iGoogle and other services.<br>Seriously, fix the damn iGoogle page, it doesn't need to do half the shit it does.  Start using the "dynamic" shit you are trying to push, would ya'? (also, the fact that someone above mentioned them going against their own guidelines with respect to certain elements.)</p><p>Just think, we could be compressing pages in JavaScript, delivering them, decompressing them and bham, saved a ton of bandwidth.<br>We could have had JavaScript written pages actually showing up in View Source pages, instead of the horribly coded examples we currently have that REfetch pages. (most cases)</p><p>Of course, the worst offender is always going to be Microsoft. They are the ones that led the others down the road of buckled support for years, eventually killing some of them off because losing control of the web could* have eaten away at the desktop market.<br>*It now is, and has been for a few years now with more and more software being sold online instead of shops, or being offered for free, or being entirely hosted through a webpage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only it was n't being blocked by so many people because of the abuse by other peolpe , who were really abusing the fact that most browsers that have JavaScript support were designed so terribly , the world wide web would have been so much better than the crap we see today.But no , we have websites designed around spamming new windows and alert boxes on all of them.THANKS WEB BROWSERS VENDORS , WE COULD N'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YA'.All of them are to blame , every damn one of them.And i blame Mozilla more for the fact that THEY never done a damn thing to change the rules.Fuck W3C , why the fuck does anyone even listen to them anymore ?
They ruined the web time and time again , and STILL ARE .
They have shown many times that they are incapable of deciding what is good for the web.Google , while they are doing things , are only doing it because they want browsers to catch up with things like the terribly optimized iGoogle and other services.Seriously , fix the damn iGoogle page , it does n't need to do half the shit it does .
Start using the " dynamic " shit you are trying to push , would ya ' ?
( also , the fact that someone above mentioned them going against their own guidelines with respect to certain elements .
) Just think , we could be compressing pages in JavaScript , delivering them , decompressing them and bham , saved a ton of bandwidth.We could have had JavaScript written pages actually showing up in View Source pages , instead of the horribly coded examples we currently have that REfetch pages .
( most cases ) Of course , the worst offender is always going to be Microsoft .
They are the ones that led the others down the road of buckled support for years , eventually killing some of them off because losing control of the web could * have eaten away at the desktop market .
* It now is , and has been for a few years now with more and more software being sold online instead of shops , or being offered for free , or being entirely hosted through a webpage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only it wasn't being blocked by so many people because of the abuse by other peolpe, who were really abusing the fact that most browsers that have JavaScript support were designed so terribly, the world wide web would have been so much better than the crap we see today.But no, we have websites designed around spamming new windows and alert boxes on all of them.THANKS WEB BROWSERS VENDORS, WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YA'.All of them are to blame, every damn one of them.And i blame Mozilla more for the fact that THEY never done a damn thing to change the rules.Fuck W3C, why the fuck does anyone even listen to them anymore?
They ruined the web time and time again, and STILL ARE.
They have shown many times that they are incapable of deciding what is good for the web.Google, while they are doing things, are only doing it because they want browsers to catch up with things like the terribly optimized iGoogle and other services.Seriously, fix the damn iGoogle page, it doesn't need to do half the shit it does.
Start using the "dynamic" shit you are trying to push, would ya'?
(also, the fact that someone above mentioned them going against their own guidelines with respect to certain elements.
)Just think, we could be compressing pages in JavaScript, delivering them, decompressing them and bham, saved a ton of bandwidth.We could have had JavaScript written pages actually showing up in View Source pages, instead of the horribly coded examples we currently have that REfetch pages.
(most cases)Of course, the worst offender is always going to be Microsoft.
They are the ones that led the others down the road of buckled support for years, eventually killing some of them off because losing control of the web could* have eaten away at the desktop market.
*It now is, and has been for a few years now with more and more software being sold online instead of shops, or being offered for free, or being entirely hosted through a webpage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454841</id>
	<title>Re:C'mon slashdot, get working</title>
	<author>chabotc</author>
	<datestamp>1245867240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to slashdot a google.com site?</p><p>I think your sense of scale might be a bit off here, but good luck with that anyhow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to slashdot a google.com site ? I think your sense of scale might be a bit off here , but good luck with that anyhow : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to slashdot a google.com site?I think your sense of scale might be a bit off here, but good luck with that anyhow :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28460551</id>
	<title>Always in favor of optimization</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245846360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad to see that at least web development is still concerned with optimization.  The glut of RAM and processing speed has made desktop developers lazy and sloppy, and it has become the norm for software to be bloated and inefficient.<br> <br>

&lt;sarcasm&gt;Why bother finding a more efficient way to do [whatever] when you're talking microseconds at the user's end?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;<br> <br>

I'm actually sort of surprised a glut of bandwidth and server power hasn't led to a similar "kitchen sink" approach to web technology.<br> <br>

Then again, I suppose it has.  Just look at any given Web 2.0 Ajax monster...and on the web we're often talking WHOLE SECONDS lost to poor optimization and badly thought out apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to see that at least web development is still concerned with optimization .
The glut of RAM and processing speed has made desktop developers lazy and sloppy , and it has become the norm for software to be bloated and inefficient .
Why bother finding a more efficient way to do [ whatever ] when you 're talking microseconds at the user 's end ?
I 'm actually sort of surprised a glut of bandwidth and server power has n't led to a similar " kitchen sink " approach to web technology .
Then again , I suppose it has .
Just look at any given Web 2.0 Ajax monster...and on the web we 're often talking WHOLE SECONDS lost to poor optimization and badly thought out apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to see that at least web development is still concerned with optimization.
The glut of RAM and processing speed has made desktop developers lazy and sloppy, and it has become the norm for software to be bloated and inefficient.
Why bother finding a more efficient way to do [whatever] when you're talking microseconds at the user's end?
I'm actually sort of surprised a glut of bandwidth and server power hasn't led to a similar "kitchen sink" approach to web technology.
Then again, I suppose it has.
Just look at any given Web 2.0 Ajax monster...and on the web we're often talking WHOLE SECONDS lost to poor optimization and badly thought out apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452157</id>
	<title>Why the change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did the White House press corps switch from priding themselves on their freedom and ability to hammer the president with tough, often inconvenient, and equally often inane questions, to racing each other to see who can verbally fellate the president the best?  Oh, that's right.  When the messiah was chosen.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did the White House press corps switch from priding themselves on their freedom and ability to hammer the president with tough , often inconvenient , and equally often inane questions , to racing each other to see who can verbally fellate the president the best ?
Oh , that 's right .
When the messiah was chosen.http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html [ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did the White House press corps switch from priding themselves on their freedom and ability to hammer the president with tough, often inconvenient, and equally often inane questions, to racing each other to see who can verbally fellate the president the best?
Oh, that's right.
When the messiah was chosen.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html [washingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083</id>
	<title>Why Do They Ignore Their Own Advice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Most of this is helpful but from the HTML piece:<p><div class="quote"><p>HTML - as opposed to XHTML, even when delivered with the MIME type text/html - allows authors to omit certain tags. According to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">HTML 4 DTD</a> [w3.org], you can omit the following tags (tags of so-called "void" - empty - elements are marked as strikethrough):</p><ul>

  <li>&lt;/area&gt;</li><li>&lt;/base&gt;</li><li>&lt;body&gt;</li><li>&lt;/body&gt;</li><li>(Void Element) &lt;/br&gt;</li><li>&lt;/col&gt;</li><li>&lt;/colgroup&gt;</li><li>&lt;/dd&gt;</li><li>&lt;/dt&gt;</li><li>&lt;head&gt;</li><li>&lt;/head&gt;</li><li>(Void Element) &lt;/hr&gt;</li><li>&lt;html&gt;</li><li>&lt;/html&gt;</li><li>(Void Element) &lt;/img&gt;</li><li>(Void Element) &lt;/input&gt;</li><li>&lt;/li&gt;</li><li>(Void Element) &lt;/link&gt;</li><li>(Void Element) &lt;/meta&gt;</li><li>&lt;/option&gt;</li><li>&lt;/p&gt;</li><li>&lt;/param&gt;</li><li>&lt;tbody&gt;</li><li>&lt;/tbody&gt;</li><li>&lt;/td&gt;</li><li>&lt;/tfoot&gt;</li><li>&lt;/th&gt;</li><li>&lt;/thead&gt;</li><li>&lt;/tr&gt;</li></ul><p>For example, if you have a list of items marked up as &lt;li&gt;List item&lt;/li&gt;, you could instead just write &lt;li&gt;List item. Or instead of a paragraph that you'd usually close with via &lt;/p&gt;, you could just use &lt;p&gt;My paragraph. This even works with html, head, and body, which are not required in HTML. (Make sure you feel comfortable with this before making it your standard coding practice.)</p><p>Omitting optional tags keeps your HTML formally valid, while decreasing your file size. In a typical document, this can mean 5-20 \% savings.</p></div><p>Now, my first reaction was simply "that cannot be valid!"  But, of course, it is.  What I found interesting is that when I looked at the source for that tutorial they themselves are using &lt;/li&gt; and &lt;/p&gt;.  Interesting, huh?  You would hope that Google would follow the very advice they are trying to give you.  <br> <br>

Some of these suggestions may come at the cost of readability and maintainability.  There's something about web pages being nice tidy properly formatted XML documents with proper closing tags that I like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of this is helpful but from the HTML piece : HTML - as opposed to XHTML , even when delivered with the MIME type text/html - allows authors to omit certain tags .
According to the HTML 4 DTD [ w3.org ] , you can omit the following tags ( tags of so-called " void " - empty - elements are marked as strikethrough ) : ( Void Element ) ( Void Element ) ( Void Element ) ( Void Element ) ( Void Element ) ( Void Element ) For example , if you have a list of items marked up as List item , you could instead just write List item .
Or instead of a paragraph that you 'd usually close with via , you could just use My paragraph .
This even works with html , head , and body , which are not required in HTML .
( Make sure you feel comfortable with this before making it your standard coding practice .
) Omitting optional tags keeps your HTML formally valid , while decreasing your file size .
In a typical document , this can mean 5-20 \ % savings.Now , my first reaction was simply " that can not be valid !
" But , of course , it is .
What I found interesting is that when I looked at the source for that tutorial they themselves are using and .
Interesting , huh ?
You would hope that Google would follow the very advice they are trying to give you .
Some of these suggestions may come at the cost of readability and maintainability .
There 's something about web pages being nice tidy properly formatted XML documents with proper closing tags that I like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Most of this is helpful but from the HTML piece:HTML - as opposed to XHTML, even when delivered with the MIME type text/html - allows authors to omit certain tags.
According to the HTML 4 DTD [w3.org], you can omit the following tags (tags of so-called "void" - empty - elements are marked as strikethrough):

  (Void Element) (Void Element) (Void Element) (Void Element) (Void Element) (Void Element) For example, if you have a list of items marked up as List item, you could instead just write List item.
Or instead of a paragraph that you'd usually close with via , you could just use My paragraph.
This even works with html, head, and body, which are not required in HTML.
(Make sure you feel comfortable with this before making it your standard coding practice.
)Omitting optional tags keeps your HTML formally valid, while decreasing your file size.
In a typical document, this can mean 5-20 \% savings.Now, my first reaction was simply "that cannot be valid!
"  But, of course, it is.
What I found interesting is that when I looked at the source for that tutorial they themselves are using  and .
Interesting, huh?
You would hope that Google would follow the very advice they are trying to give you.
Some of these suggestions may come at the cost of readability and maintainability.
There's something about web pages being nice tidy properly formatted XML documents with proper closing tags that I like.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452555</id>
	<title>They should start with their ads</title>
	<author>JorgeFierro</author>
	<datestamp>1245859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was an article here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. some time ago that affirmed that google ads/analysis was slowing down the web. In my personal experience, this has normally been true, most of the time when a major webpage is taking time to load up, I see 'Waiting for [insert something google]...'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an article here on / .
some time ago that affirmed that google ads/analysis was slowing down the web .
In my personal experience , this has normally been true , most of the time when a major webpage is taking time to load up , I see 'Waiting for [ insert something google ] ...' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an article here on /.
some time ago that affirmed that google ads/analysis was slowing down the web.
In my personal experience, this has normally been true, most of the time when a major webpage is taking time to load up, I see 'Waiting for [insert something google]...'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452331</id>
	<title>good idea</title>
	<author>burris</author>
	<datestamp>1245857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As any open source developer knows, what's needed is more ideas, suggestions, and questions.  Later, once the discussion group has come to consensus, we'll write some code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As any open source developer knows , what 's needed is more ideas , suggestions , and questions .
Later , once the discussion group has come to consensus , we 'll write some code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As any open source developer knows, what's needed is more ideas, suggestions, and questions.
Later, once the discussion group has come to consensus, we'll write some code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452633</id>
	<title>Javascript Sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245859380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript and therefore AJAX sucks! Why would anyone with half a brain want to use a platform/browser specific language?  Huge if/then trees to check which browser then you have to rewrite your code every time a new browser version comes out.  Get a clue!  Server side rules!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript and therefore AJAX sucks !
Why would anyone with half a brain want to use a platform/browser specific language ?
Huge if/then trees to check which browser then you have to rewrite your code every time a new browser version comes out .
Get a clue !
Server side rules !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript and therefore AJAX sucks!
Why would anyone with half a brain want to use a platform/browser specific language?
Huge if/then trees to check which browser then you have to rewrite your code every time a new browser version comes out.
Get a clue!
Server side rules!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453763</id>
	<title>Some very slow sites: Slashdot and Facebook</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1245863460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
More and more, sites are generating the message "A script on this page is running too slowly" from Firefox. Not because the site is hung; just because it's insanely slow.  Slashdot is one of the worst offenders. The problem seems to be in ad code; Slashdot has some convoluted Javascript for loading Google text ads.  Anyway, hitting "cancel" when Slashdot generates that message doesn't hurt anything that matters.
</p><p>
Facebook is even worse. Facebook's "send message" message composition box is so slow that CPU usage goes to 100\% when typing in a message.  Open a CPU monitor window and try it.  I've been trying to figure out what's going on, but the Javascript loads more Javascript which loads more Javascript, and I don't want to spend the debugger time to figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more , sites are generating the message " A script on this page is running too slowly " from Firefox .
Not because the site is hung ; just because it 's insanely slow .
Slashdot is one of the worst offenders .
The problem seems to be in ad code ; Slashdot has some convoluted Javascript for loading Google text ads .
Anyway , hitting " cancel " when Slashdot generates that message does n't hurt anything that matters .
Facebook is even worse .
Facebook 's " send message " message composition box is so slow that CPU usage goes to 100 \ % when typing in a message .
Open a CPU monitor window and try it .
I 've been trying to figure out what 's going on , but the Javascript loads more Javascript which loads more Javascript , and I do n't want to spend the debugger time to figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
More and more, sites are generating the message "A script on this page is running too slowly" from Firefox.
Not because the site is hung; just because it's insanely slow.
Slashdot is one of the worst offenders.
The problem seems to be in ad code; Slashdot has some convoluted Javascript for loading Google text ads.
Anyway, hitting "cancel" when Slashdot generates that message doesn't hurt anything that matters.
Facebook is even worse.
Facebook's "send message" message composition box is so slow that CPU usage goes to 100\% when typing in a message.
Open a CPU monitor window and try it.
I've been trying to figure out what's going on, but the Javascript loads more Javascript which loads more Javascript, and I don't want to spend the debugger time to figure it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452223</id>
	<title>Revolutionary idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have this great and innovative idea. Take your browser-based e-mail client and word processor, rewrite them in native machine code and run them alongside the browser, as a separate app, instead of inside it. For even more speedup, the data could be stored on the hard drive instead of downloaded from a remote web-site.
Never seen before!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have this great and innovative idea .
Take your browser-based e-mail client and word processor , rewrite them in native machine code and run them alongside the browser , as a separate app , instead of inside it .
For even more speedup , the data could be stored on the hard drive instead of downloaded from a remote web-site .
Never seen before !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have this great and innovative idea.
Take your browser-based e-mail client and word processor, rewrite them in native machine code and run them alongside the browser, as a separate app, instead of inside it.
For even more speedup, the data could be stored on the hard drive instead of downloaded from a remote web-site.
Never seen before!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454031</id>
	<title>So is this new Google initiative...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1245864420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...available to <i>Google developers</i>?  Because some of the slowest applications on the planet are Google apps:  The gmail and adwords applications come immediately to mind.</p><p>I think it's somewhat disingenuous to imply that slow web interfaces are someone else's problem  when in fact Google is probably one of the worst perpetrators when it comes to slow interfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...available to Google developers ?
Because some of the slowest applications on the planet are Google apps : The gmail and adwords applications come immediately to mind.I think it 's somewhat disingenuous to imply that slow web interfaces are someone else 's problem when in fact Google is probably one of the worst perpetrators when it comes to slow interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...available to Google developers?
Because some of the slowest applications on the planet are Google apps:  The gmail and adwords applications come immediately to mind.I think it's somewhat disingenuous to imply that slow web interfaces are someone else's problem  when in fact Google is probably one of the worst perpetrators when it comes to slow interfaces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452377</id>
	<title>WebSpeed?</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1245858180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean like Progress? Since OE10 Webspeed errors have dropped off considerably...
<a href="http://web.progress.com/openedge/webspeed-worshop.html" title="progress.com">http://web.progress.com/openedge/webspeed-worshop.html</a> [progress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like Progress ?
Since OE10 Webspeed errors have dropped off considerably.. . http : //web.progress.com/openedge/webspeed-worshop.html [ progress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like Progress?
Since OE10 Webspeed errors have dropped off considerably...
http://web.progress.com/openedge/webspeed-worshop.html [progress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28456537</id>
	<title>Headers being sent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245873000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you do a POST|GET you send the request as is uncompressed. The server normally replies with the data compressed. We should have a method to allow sending compressed headers. This alone would save tons of b/w. More so when dealing with AJAX sort of requests. Think about it, you do something tiny to change a flag or a few characters of text and massive headers are being sent. More often than not your up-stream b/w is going to be way lower than down.

Also, when serving content it is best to have it on another domain name or virtual host of sorts. If you are serving all your data from the same server then you will be sending massive cookie headers even when fetching images for the page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you do a POST | GET you send the request as is uncompressed .
The server normally replies with the data compressed .
We should have a method to allow sending compressed headers .
This alone would save tons of b/w .
More so when dealing with AJAX sort of requests .
Think about it , you do something tiny to change a flag or a few characters of text and massive headers are being sent .
More often than not your up-stream b/w is going to be way lower than down .
Also , when serving content it is best to have it on another domain name or virtual host of sorts .
If you are serving all your data from the same server then you will be sending massive cookie headers even when fetching images for the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you do a POST|GET you send the request as is uncompressed.
The server normally replies with the data compressed.
We should have a method to allow sending compressed headers.
This alone would save tons of b/w.
More so when dealing with AJAX sort of requests.
Think about it, you do something tiny to change a flag or a few characters of text and massive headers are being sent.
More often than not your up-stream b/w is going to be way lower than down.
Also, when serving content it is best to have it on another domain name or virtual host of sorts.
If you are serving all your data from the same server then you will be sending massive cookie headers even when fetching images for the page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453493</id>
	<title>Re:Just write a native client-side app</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1245862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and shouldn't be used as such. We spent all these years upgrading to the latest Core 2 Trio so we could make the internet connection the new bottleneck.</i></p><p>Well yeah. It was designed to serve content but to downplay server side content is to discount the whole reason PHP, CGI, and ASP was made.</p><p>There is a dramatic need for web hosts and web developers to control the platform in which your application will run. Your only alternative is to create an app which may or maynot run on your user's hardware and OS platform.</p><p>Sure a lot of people have fast CPUs but you have no guarantee that they all do and not only that but issues with drivers and almost infinite problems with OS issues that go with creating and maintaining source for multiple platforms.</p><p>Logistically it would be easier for the developer to run all the code server side and send only pertinent information to the user which usually reduces the problem with the bandwidth.</p><p>From a support standpoint, thin clients are easier to support since if you need to do troubleshooting you don't have to mess with the client computer that much. (Go Terminal Server/Citrix!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and should n't be used as such .
We spent all these years upgrading to the latest Core 2 Trio so we could make the internet connection the new bottleneck.Well yeah .
It was designed to serve content but to downplay server side content is to discount the whole reason PHP , CGI , and ASP was made.There is a dramatic need for web hosts and web developers to control the platform in which your application will run .
Your only alternative is to create an app which may or maynot run on your user 's hardware and OS platform.Sure a lot of people have fast CPUs but you have no guarantee that they all do and not only that but issues with drivers and almost infinite problems with OS issues that go with creating and maintaining source for multiple platforms.Logistically it would be easier for the developer to run all the code server side and send only pertinent information to the user which usually reduces the problem with the bandwidth.From a support standpoint , thin clients are easier to support since if you need to do troubleshooting you do n't have to mess with the client computer that much .
( Go Terminal Server/Citrix !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML/HTTP were never designed as a method for running remote applications and shouldn't be used as such.
We spent all these years upgrading to the latest Core 2 Trio so we could make the internet connection the new bottleneck.Well yeah.
It was designed to serve content but to downplay server side content is to discount the whole reason PHP, CGI, and ASP was made.There is a dramatic need for web hosts and web developers to control the platform in which your application will run.
Your only alternative is to create an app which may or maynot run on your user's hardware and OS platform.Sure a lot of people have fast CPUs but you have no guarantee that they all do and not only that but issues with drivers and almost infinite problems with OS issues that go with creating and maintaining source for multiple platforms.Logistically it would be easier for the developer to run all the code server side and send only pertinent information to the user which usually reduces the problem with the bandwidth.From a support standpoint, thin clients are easier to support since if you need to do troubleshooting you don't have to mess with the client computer that much.
(Go Terminal Server/Citrix!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452145</id>
	<title>C'mon slashdot, get working</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've got to slashdot their site for ultimate irony!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've got to slashdot their site for ultimate irony !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've got to slashdot their site for ultimate irony!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453785</id>
	<title>Re:Revolutionary idea</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1245863580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean what Microsoft has been doing since 1990-something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean what Microsoft has been doing since 1990-something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean what Microsoft has been doing since 1990-something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454763</id>
	<title>Yslow vs. Speed</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1245866940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those who are into web site performance, like me, the standard tool for everyone was <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/" title="yahoo.com">Yslow</a> [yahoo.com], which is a Firefox extension that measured front end (browser) page loading speed, assigned a score to your site/page and then gave a set of recommendations on improving the user experience.</p><p>Now Google has the similar <a href="http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/download.html" title="google.com">Page speed</a> [google.com] Firefox extension.</p><p>However, when I tried it, with 5+ windows and 100+ tabs open, Firefox kept eating away memory, and then the laptop swapped and swapped and I had to kill Firefox, and go in its configuration files by hand and disable Page Speed. I have Yslow on the same configuration with no ill effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who are into web site performance , like me , the standard tool for everyone was Yslow [ yahoo.com ] , which is a Firefox extension that measured front end ( browser ) page loading speed , assigned a score to your site/page and then gave a set of recommendations on improving the user experience.Now Google has the similar Page speed [ google.com ] Firefox extension.However , when I tried it , with 5 + windows and 100 + tabs open , Firefox kept eating away memory , and then the laptop swapped and swapped and I had to kill Firefox , and go in its configuration files by hand and disable Page Speed .
I have Yslow on the same configuration with no ill effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who are into web site performance, like me, the standard tool for everyone was Yslow [yahoo.com], which is a Firefox extension that measured front end (browser) page loading speed, assigned a score to your site/page and then gave a set of recommendations on improving the user experience.Now Google has the similar Page speed [google.com] Firefox extension.However, when I tried it, with 5+ windows and 100+ tabs open, Firefox kept eating away memory, and then the laptop swapped and swapped and I had to kill Firefox, and go in its configuration files by hand and disable Page Speed.
I have Yslow on the same configuration with no ill effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28460167</id>
	<title>Why do XML closing tags contain the tag name?</title>
	<author>Zaiff Urgulbunger</author>
	<datestamp>1245844680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing I've never really understood is why closing tags in XML have the tag name? Surely the angle brackets with slash inside would be enough since (assuming the markup is valid) it is obvious to the parser which tag is being closed: e.g. (I've used underscores to indent... I can't make the slash-code use spaces!!)<br>
<tt>
&lt;html&gt;<br>
\_\_&lt;head&gt;<br>
\_\_\_\_&lt;title&gt;Example&lt;/&gt;<br>
\_\_&lt;/&gt;<br>
\_\_&lt;body&gt;<br>
\_\_\_\_&lt;h1&gt;Example&lt;/&gt;<br>
\_\_\_\_&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/&gt; an&lt;/&gt; example.&lt;/&gt;<br>
\_\_&lt;/&gt;<br>
&lt;/&gt;<br>
</tt> <br>
I know this makes it hard for a human to see opening/closing tags, but if XML parsers (including those in browsers) were able to accept markup with short close tags or the normal named close tags, then we could: 1. benefit where the markup is machine generated and, 2. easily pre-process manually created markup.... it's easy enough to convert back and forth.<br>
<br>
But maybe there's a good reason for not doing this that I'm missing... but it's always bothered me!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've never really understood is why closing tags in XML have the tag name ?
Surely the angle brackets with slash inside would be enough since ( assuming the markup is valid ) it is obvious to the parser which tag is being closed : e.g .
( I 've used underscores to indent... I ca n't make the slash-code use spaces ! !
) \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _Example \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _Example \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _This is an example .
\ _ \ _ I know this makes it hard for a human to see opening/closing tags , but if XML parsers ( including those in browsers ) were able to accept markup with short close tags or the normal named close tags , then we could : 1. benefit where the markup is machine generated and , 2. easily pre-process manually created markup.... it 's easy enough to convert back and forth .
But maybe there 's a good reason for not doing this that I 'm missing... but it 's always bothered me !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've never really understood is why closing tags in XML have the tag name?
Surely the angle brackets with slash inside would be enough since (assuming the markup is valid) it is obvious to the parser which tag is being closed: e.g.
(I've used underscores to indent... I can't make the slash-code use spaces!!
)


\_\_
\_\_\_\_Example
\_\_
\_\_
\_\_\_\_Example
\_\_\_\_This is an example.
\_\_

 
I know this makes it hard for a human to see opening/closing tags, but if XML parsers (including those in browsers) were able to accept markup with short close tags or the normal named close tags, then we could: 1. benefit where the markup is machine generated and, 2. easily pre-process manually created markup.... it's easy enough to convert back and forth.
But maybe there's a good reason for not doing this that I'm missing... but it's always bothered me!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28457995</id>
	<title>Re:Why Do They Ignore Their Own Advice?</title>
	<author>aamcf</author>
	<datestamp>1245835620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, my first reaction was simply "that cannot be valid!" But, of course, it is. </p></div> </blockquote><p>You can do Interesting Things with HTML and tag and attribute minimization. This is a valid web page:</p><p> <tt>&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC &quot;-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN&quot;&gt;&lt;title//&lt;p//</tt> </p><p> <a href="http://aamcf.co.uk/attic/2004/08/sgml-geekery-1.html" title="aamcf.co.uk" rel="nofollow">I wrote about this</a> [aamcf.co.uk] a few years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , my first reaction was simply " that can not be valid !
" But , of course , it is .
You can do Interesting Things with HTML and tag and attribute minimization .
This is a valid web page : I wrote about this [ aamcf.co.uk ] a few years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, my first reaction was simply "that cannot be valid!
" But, of course, it is.
You can do Interesting Things with HTML and tag and attribute minimization.
This is a valid web page:   I wrote about this [aamcf.co.uk] a few years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453951</id>
	<title>Re:Revolutionary idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how are you supposed to sell advertising space if your application isn't always connected to the Internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how are you supposed to sell advertising space if your application is n't always connected to the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how are you supposed to sell advertising space if your application isn't always connected to the Internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452211</id>
	<title>Start by eliminating the zero bits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The skinnier ones compress much easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The skinnier ones compress much easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The skinnier ones compress much easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452803</id>
	<title>Stop using off-site crap</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1245860040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Google Analytics, or Google Ads. When Google went pear-shaped some time back it made a significant portion of the Web unusable. If your own server is down, no big deal. If other sites depend on your server, then it's a problem.

</p><p>While I'm slagging off Google, why don't they stop Doing Cool New Stuff and improve their fucking search engine instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Google Analytics , or Google Ads .
When Google went pear-shaped some time back it made a significant portion of the Web unusable .
If your own server is down , no big deal .
If other sites depend on your server , then it 's a problem .
While I 'm slagging off Google , why do n't they stop Doing Cool New Stuff and improve their fucking search engine instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Google Analytics, or Google Ads.
When Google went pear-shaped some time back it made a significant portion of the Web unusable.
If your own server is down, no big deal.
If other sites depend on your server, then it's a problem.
While I'm slagging off Google, why don't they stop Doing Cool New Stuff and improve their fucking search engine instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453677</id>
	<title>Re:What's that sound?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1245863160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That article says "It's better to use concatenation than double-quoted strings." Every legitimate benchmark I've seen has shown that the difference is zero to negligible. In tests that I've run myself, concatenation actually scales worse; a dozen concatenation operations are slower than one double-quoted string.
<br> <br>
As for using commas with echo, why aren't you using a template engine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That article says " It 's better to use concatenation than double-quoted strings .
" Every legitimate benchmark I 've seen has shown that the difference is zero to negligible .
In tests that I 've run myself , concatenation actually scales worse ; a dozen concatenation operations are slower than one double-quoted string .
As for using commas with echo , why are n't you using a template engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That article says "It's better to use concatenation than double-quoted strings.
" Every legitimate benchmark I've seen has shown that the difference is zero to negligible.
In tests that I've run myself, concatenation actually scales worse; a dozen concatenation operations are slower than one double-quoted string.
As for using commas with echo, why aren't you using a template engine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093</id>
	<title>What's that sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>/**<br>* What's the sound of 1 million simultaneous PHP commits to SourceForge?<br>* @see: http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-php.html<br>*/<br><br>echo 'substituting' , 'concatenation' , 'with' , 'commas';<br><br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ * * * What 's the sound of 1 million simultaneous PHP commits to SourceForge ?
* @ see : http : //code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-php.html * /echo 'substituting ' , 'concatenation ' , 'with ' , 'commas ' ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/*** What's the sound of 1 million simultaneous PHP commits to SourceForge?
* @see: http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-php.html*/echo 'substituting' , 'concatenation' , 'with' , 'commas';</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28455161</id>
	<title>mod 3o3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sc4emes. Frankly</htmltext>
<tokenext>sc4emes .
Frankly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sc4emes.
Frankly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28465205</id>
	<title>Re:Why Do They Ignore Their Own Advice?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245938160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but not closing your tags is not being xhtml complient, and google has an image to upkeep!<br>They show off what they know, but they want to remain politically correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but not closing your tags is not being xhtml complient , and google has an image to upkeep ! They show off what they know , but they want to remain politically correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but not closing your tags is not being xhtml complient, and google has an image to upkeep!They show off what they know, but they want to remain politically correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453147</id>
	<title>external resources in HTML pages</title>
	<author>reed</author>
	<datestamp>1245861360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number one slowdown I see on pages is linking to all kinds of external resources: images, flash movies, iframes, CSS, bits of javascript. Each of these requires at least another DNS lookup and a new HTTP connection, and often those external servers take a really long time to respond (because they're busy doing the same for all those other websites using them).  Why is this going on in each users browser?  It should all be done behind the scenes on the web server.  Why would you put the basic user experience of your users or customers in the hands of random partners who are also doing the same for competing sites?   It takes some load off your server, but I think the real reason that people just link in external resources as images, objects, etc is just that it's easier than implementing it in the back end.   If you really want to offload work, then design a mechanism that addresses that need specifically.</p><p>We've ended up with a broken idea of what a web server is. Because it was the easiest way to get started, we now seem to be stuck with the basic idea that a web server is something that maps request URLs directly to files on the server's hard disk that are either returned as is or executed as scripts. This needs to change (and it is a little bit, as those "CGI scripts" have now evolved into scripts which are using real web app frameworks.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number one slowdown I see on pages is linking to all kinds of external resources : images , flash movies , iframes , CSS , bits of javascript .
Each of these requires at least another DNS lookup and a new HTTP connection , and often those external servers take a really long time to respond ( because they 're busy doing the same for all those other websites using them ) .
Why is this going on in each users browser ?
It should all be done behind the scenes on the web server .
Why would you put the basic user experience of your users or customers in the hands of random partners who are also doing the same for competing sites ?
It takes some load off your server , but I think the real reason that people just link in external resources as images , objects , etc is just that it 's easier than implementing it in the back end .
If you really want to offload work , then design a mechanism that addresses that need specifically.We 've ended up with a broken idea of what a web server is .
Because it was the easiest way to get started , we now seem to be stuck with the basic idea that a web server is something that maps request URLs directly to files on the server 's hard disk that are either returned as is or executed as scripts .
This needs to change ( and it is a little bit , as those " CGI scripts " have now evolved into scripts which are using real web app frameworks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number one slowdown I see on pages is linking to all kinds of external resources: images, flash movies, iframes, CSS, bits of javascript.
Each of these requires at least another DNS lookup and a new HTTP connection, and often those external servers take a really long time to respond (because they're busy doing the same for all those other websites using them).
Why is this going on in each users browser?
It should all be done behind the scenes on the web server.
Why would you put the basic user experience of your users or customers in the hands of random partners who are also doing the same for competing sites?
It takes some load off your server, but I think the real reason that people just link in external resources as images, objects, etc is just that it's easier than implementing it in the back end.
If you really want to offload work, then design a mechanism that addresses that need specifically.We've ended up with a broken idea of what a web server is.
Because it was the easiest way to get started, we now seem to be stuck with the basic idea that a web server is something that maps request URLs directly to files on the server's hard disk that are either returned as is or executed as scripts.
This needs to change (and it is a little bit, as those "CGI scripts" have now evolved into scripts which are using real web app frameworks.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452265</id>
	<title>It's a plague.</title>
	<author>BlueKitties</author>
	<datestamp>1245857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember the golden days, when I had limited online time allowed because AOL was metering my parents dial-up connection; webpages actually loaded on dial up. Yes, you heard me, dial up could load any web page on the Internet. After broad-band came up, certain web pages started slowly taking longer and longer to load; today, dial up just doesn't cut it. I suppose we have the same problem with processing resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the golden days , when I had limited online time allowed because AOL was metering my parents dial-up connection ; webpages actually loaded on dial up .
Yes , you heard me , dial up could load any web page on the Internet .
After broad-band came up , certain web pages started slowly taking longer and longer to load ; today , dial up just does n't cut it .
I suppose we have the same problem with processing resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the golden days, when I had limited online time allowed because AOL was metering my parents dial-up connection; webpages actually loaded on dial up.
Yes, you heard me, dial up could load any web page on the Internet.
After broad-band came up, certain web pages started slowly taking longer and longer to load; today, dial up just doesn't cut it.
I suppose we have the same problem with processing resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28469275</id>
	<title>Re:What's that sound?</title>
	<author>615</author>
	<datestamp>1245956520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, Google's very first claim (about copying variables doubling memory consumption) is dubious. Although the language itself passes most variable types by value, the PHP interpreter copies variables lazily using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy\_on\_write" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">copy-on-write</a> [wikipedia.org]. So in general, &quot;aliasing&quot; variables for readability should be OK. However, I'm not sure whether the interpreter copies individual array elements lazily...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , Google 's very first claim ( about copying variables doubling memory consumption ) is dubious .
Although the language itself passes most variable types by value , the PHP interpreter copies variables lazily using copy-on-write [ wikipedia.org ] .
So in general , " aliasing " variables for readability should be OK. However , I 'm not sure whether the interpreter copies individual array elements lazily.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, Google's very first claim (about copying variables doubling memory consumption) is dubious.
Although the language itself passes most variable types by value, the PHP interpreter copies variables lazily using copy-on-write [wikipedia.org].
So in general, "aliasing" variables for readability should be OK. However, I'm not sure whether the interpreter copies individual array elements lazily...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454685</id>
	<title>Re:Why Do They Ignore Their Own Advice?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245866640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it still is a verbosity joke.</p><p>I internally use a format that is derived from EBML. Matroska's internal generic binary markup format.<br>I simply added a mapping header, that maps tag names and parameter names to the tag ids.<br>That way I can easily convert, and edit the files, with any text editor, and transform from XML and back without any hassle at all.<br>It's just like ASCII is a mapping of numbers to characters. Just on one level higher.</p><p>It's nearly too simple an obvious. So I think it should be come a new standard.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it still is a verbosity joke.I internally use a format that is derived from EBML .
Matroska 's internal generic binary markup format.I simply added a mapping header , that maps tag names and parameter names to the tag ids.That way I can easily convert , and edit the files , with any text editor , and transform from XML and back without any hassle at all.It 's just like ASCII is a mapping of numbers to characters .
Just on one level higher.It 's nearly too simple an obvious .
So I think it should be come a new standard .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it still is a verbosity joke.I internally use a format that is derived from EBML.
Matroska's internal generic binary markup format.I simply added a mapping header, that maps tag names and parameter names to the tag ids.That way I can easily convert, and edit the files, with any text editor, and transform from XML and back without any hassle at all.It's just like ASCII is a mapping of numbers to characters.
Just on one level higher.It's nearly too simple an obvious.
So I think it should be come a new standard.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28457995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28482759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28455095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28465205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28469275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28458053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1350232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28462407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28457995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28465205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28455095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28482759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28458513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28456537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28460167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28458053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28454841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28469275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28453763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28462407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1350232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1350232.28452157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
