On my dev machine (which is windows-based), I've been running mySQL 4.1.12. I like it. I like the new character encoding that 4.1 brings.

Then I went to send an updated version of the software I'm working on to the live server - which runs an older 4.0.x version. I lost all of the nice latin encodings in there.

So I said, ok. Maybe its time to upgrade to 4.1.

Being a cautious guy, I do it on my non-live gentoo machine. Just to see how it goes.

Turns out portage (the nice easy to use software distribution engine for gentoo) has 4.1 masked. All of it.

It happens alot, when designing Web interfaces, that you'll want things... aligned (horizontally).

I'm a show you how I do it...

A few months ago (or is it years?), I've been awakened, so to speak, to the wonders of web design standards that guides (should guide) developpers who use HTML and descendants/friends to build web pages.

I was quite competent before. My stuff worked marvelously on IE browsers and great on Netscape. But I didn't really follow standards.

A few friends talked to be about the wonders of W3C (which I knew but didn't care much about). Eventually, the arguments went home and I went standard.

I even switched browsers to Firefox (which is a great browser, by the way - especially if you're a developper).

However, I still often use IE. Because, I am part of planet earth and most of them do. There sadly is still a lot of web sites that follow the non-standards of Microsoft. Shame, shame, shame.

(Reality, reality, reality).

Working at following the standards, I came to see where Microsoft strayed away. There's nothing wrong with extending the standard (or proposing extensions to the standard, like the folks at MS like to say). It's annoying when the standard is just not followed. A thing wich the IE browser is kinda fond of. Not too often, but often enough to instantaneously cause gray hairs to grow on many a developper's head.

Firefox, on the other hand, follows the standards rather well. Not always - they're only human. But they do it better than IE. And I like them for it.

Usually, when Firefox does not follow standards, IE does not either. Such is the case if you ever get to play with negative z-index. On Firefox, negative z-order means : "don't show the item". I don't know, maybe it sends it behind the body? On IE, weird ass unbelieveable shit happens. Things such as hyperlink tags on items with negative z-index don't receive mouse input anymore. Shit such as negative z-index don't have an effect on elelments generated via javascript.

Which usually ends up with the devleopper saying : screw the sensible design. I'm breaking this shit into tables.

(Yes, I'm speaking from experience).

But the thing I really wanted to talk about is tables.

See, if you read HTML evangelists, they'll tell you that tables are evil. I (and many others) disagree.

I'd say tables are somewhat evil.

You can do alot of things in div tags. Tables are not always required.

But there's a stupid thing in W3C that makes me wonder about that stuff and often sends me to tables.

Worse, it often sends me towards single-cell tables. It's depressing.

This stuff is called: vertical alignment.

Vertical alignments don't seem work in most block elements (including div). If they can work, I haven't figured it out. And it's driving me mad.

Often, I want to align text on the bottom of a div. I don't want to 'pad the text with an amount of pixels that'll send it to the bottom'. I want to say, using CSS that 'this piece of text goes on the bottom'.

Works fine in td using vertical-align. That's all.

Sometimes, I have a piece of text, followed by a logo, followed by a piece of text. I want them all vertically aligned so their centers match.

Only one solution: a table.

I often waste so much time on trying to work around using tables and use a more sensible (and CSS-customisable) HTML design and end up just stuffing things in table that it's making me wonder why I dropped out of using tables in the first place.

If there's a trick I didn't catch, please share!

Please share...

I've always had a fondness for Apple's mouse designs. I loved the "iPuck". Well, I loved to look at it. Not touch it or manipulate it in any way. I had this wonderful idea that they should do a wireless version of it.

Y'know, perfectly circular, perfectly simmertrical, no write, no button (just apply pression on the iPuck to click). It'd be beautiful. And you'd have even less chances to be able to grab the mouse and know which way moves the pointer up.

Well, this went away with the old iMac and Apple built more sensible mice.

But now, there's a new mouse in town - apple's new, powerul, Mighty Mouse!

It's sleek. It looks buttonless. It even has a little clit-looking trackball ontop.

It's a trackball on a mouse! They shoulda called it the double mouse and leave my name alone!

Said a retired rodent superhero who preferred to remain anonymous.

It looks buttonless, but it has "sensors" that react when you apply pressure on them.

Me, I like to give these new technological widgets a name. Let me pull one out of my ass and let's call them "buttons".

Side buttons seem fine. But the top buttons... you can't feel'em or see'em. Call me old school, but I kinda believe that - even though it really looks pretty cool - it's incredibly counter intuitive and therefore starts dabbling in the realm of "bad design".

At least, mac users get a new pluti-sensitive-plated-tickle-me-spotted mouse and it looks pretty sleek. I almost can't wait to actually try one :P