There are a number of different browsers that you must compensate for when designing your webpage's in any format (CSS, tables etc.), some of the most common browsers are : Internet Explorer 6/ 7, Firefox and Safari. The main issues that arise with CSS design is that all browsers interpret CSS differently, for example Firefox does not understand some of the CSS commands that Internet Explorer does and vice a versa.

One of the main issues I have found when designing with CSS is a problem with margins in Internet Explorer 6. I found that when using a float on a div tag that also had a margin set, the margin would actually double and then knock the whole pages layout out. After numerous late nights and an insane amount of coffee I finally found a solution to this double margin bug. By inserting a simple line of code the double margin no longer double ! That solution is as follows, by adding this line of code to your CSS div tag 'display: inline'.

Another problem I have found with CSS in Internet Explorer 6 is a problem when trying to define a div tag that has a smaller size than the base font size. This problem again can be fixed with a simple line of code this time all we need to add is the following line of code to the div tag: 'font-size:0px'. There is also another solution to this problem that should have the same effect, because the div tag auto stretches to compensate for content overflow adding 'overflow: hidden' should also resolve the problem.

Unfortunately I have been unable to cover all of the cross browser issues that you may experience when designing with CSS, but most of the problems that you may encounter can be resolved pretty easily with simple trial and error. Happy designing!

BETA is a pure object oriented programming language developed by Scandinavian School in System Development, Nordic Universities.

This was released after a series of enhancements of their first object oriented language SimulaI which was a simulation language. Soon it was generalized into Simula67 which had the object oriented framework, and worked on the concepts of class, sub-class, virtual functions etc. This was enhanced by another object oriented language Delta that worked for system description; this meant it could express predicate logic and state changes. This was a non-executable effort and thus did not qualify as a language. So it was decided to design a programming language Gamma that works as Delta but is executable.

Eventually, Gamma was never made, rather Beta was made. While Beta was being made, it was realized that Beta was much more powerful than what Gamma would be or ever could be. Beta is a programming language like C++.

Currently, BETA is available on UNIX workstations, on PowerPC Macintosh and on Intel-based PCs. BETA has an optimum balance between compile time checking and run time checking. The type cast checking is done at compile time, however, for the entire set of type check and type conversion to be done at compile time requires a lot of time and thus increases the complexity of a program. Thus, an optimum balance has been made.

BETA is a logical description of the language. It works on the concepts of class, sub-class, virtual functions etc. It also contains transient variables, ones whose scope is program execution, and persistent variables, those whose values are retained in the disk space and are available at the time of next execution.

When choosing the best content management system for your project, it is important to weigh both the technical and non-technical pros and cons. Both technical and non-technical reasons can ultimately affect the bottom line cost. Therefore, it is not recommended to simply choose a content management system based solely on technical language or feature set. In this article, we will take a look at an open source content management system called Radiant CMS.

Radiant is a Ruby on Rails based solution that works with a variety of databases. It has a few years of development and a couple noteworthy deployments. There are technical and non-technical reasons why Radiant CMS is a good choice for a content management system.

Technical Reasons to Choose Radiant CMS: It's Ruby on Rails based which can speed development by taking advantage of the convention over configuration paradigm. In addition, the Radiant code base has excellent automated coverage in unit tests. This means the code is well tested and robust. Unit test code coverage can be one aspect to measure when considering open source content management systems. In fact, we could suggest the amount of code covered by automated unit and integration tests should be considered when choosing any open source library and/or framework. It is an easy indicator to measure and compare. But, that is an entirely different conversation.

Radiant CMS also has an excellent extension system. This allows customizations required by your project to be made. When choosing a content management system, the ability to add and maintain any customizations should be an important factor. This point should be considered not only from the beginning, but how your customizations will evolve as upgrades and enhancements occur within your chosen content management system. In other words, if the core CMS is modified to provide the custom functionality, how can upgrades or patches from the core CMS developers be applied to your modified version. Radiant's extension system provides this separation of concern.

The Radius tagging system of Radiant is fantastic for adding dynamic functionality. It is nice that tags can be added directly to page content rather than some kind of comment or special character sequence in order to indicate non-static content.

Non-Technical Reasons to Choose Radiant CMS: Radiant has an elegant, intuitive administrative interface. It is not intimidating to the non-technical user. In fact, the design encourages people to embrace using the system, because they assume it is going to be easy to pick up and learn.

The lack of workflow functionality can be considered a feature in many cases. In competing CMS products, workflow can seem like an attractive feature at first, but is often hindrance to configure and work around for projects which require only a few administrators of content.

An additional, non-technical reason to choose Radiant CMS is cost. The project is open source and the community of ruby on rails developers and ruby on rails hosting providers is growing, so your cost risk of obtaining these resources is minimized.

Conclusion

From a technical perspective, the open source, Ruby on Rails based Radiant CMS makes an excellent choice. From a non-technical perspective, Radiant CMS makes an excellent choice as well. When combining both perspectives, we have had many positive project experiences and deployments using Radiant over the past year and a half.