Posts by tgreer

There is no such thing as "Web 2.0". What the media is calling Web 2.0 is an arbitrary collection of existing technologies. That's like adding a webcam to your PC and claiming you have a "PC 2.0". Ridiculous. Please, don't waste our time with Web 2.0 articles.

Why would autocompletion and syntax highlighting be illegal?

I'm all for Google making a profit. I'm against any business that makes a profit by stealing my content or by reselling portions of copyrighted material, or by spying on my shopping and browsing habits.

Of interest are the collaboration features, the ability to "share" your notebook with friends and family and "publish it" as a public web page. It seems Google is not content with caching entire sites and scanning copyrighted printed publications; they see a new opportunity in the social networking environment of the web. They want to get people to voluntarily generate content which becomes a "new public page", which they can then in turn regurgitate, index, and monetize.

To those who are tempted to voluntarily store, share, and publish their browsing history, ask yourself how this feature is possible. The answer is: Google is already doing exactly that, on a massive scale. Next, ask yourself why Google would offer this for "free". There is no free lunch, and I join the increasing number of people who view Google with a great degree of skepticism and an increasing amount of distrust.

I worked for an engineering firm, where among other things we developed solid-state (read: pure RAM-based, no moving parts) storage devices. One of our clients defined "extreme environment". The Canadian Coast Guard used our drives on their fleet of ice-breakers.

Microsoft is absolutely in the right, though I'm skeptical of their motives, to be sure. Google's entire buisness and profit model is based on collecting content, without paying for it. Call it whatever you like, it is copyright infringement on a massive scale.

Privacy certainly ranks as one of the primary reasons many are opposed to Google and Gmail. Another concern is content appropriation and monetization.

I was a big fan of Google when they first came on the scene. I loved the relevance of their search results, plus all of the cool programmer-centric tools they offered. I didn't mind when they introduced AdWords – it seemed like a valid way for them to make money. We had legitimate search results, and we had "paid" search results, and the two were clearly separate.

At some point, though, Google stopped being a search engine, and became – something else. They weren't just indexing my pages (content I authored and own), but were storing complete copies on their own servers. Moreover, they use all that cached content to drive their advertising systems. I don't recall ever giving them permission to copy my copyrighted content. When did I become one of their "content providers"? Where’s my payment? If they are profiting from my content, shouldn't I get a cut?

Interestingly, I see the "Google Model: How to Profit from others' Content" paralleled in many online systems, including user forums such as Daniweb. It's certainly appropriate for a forum operator to sell advertising, and to dedicate page real estate to show ads. However, many sites (including this one) have crossed the line into selling off the very words members type. Again, a line has been crossed: sell your screen real estate? Fine. Sell my …

Many don't find his view extreme at all. I think it's a realistic look at Google.

Whatever good they've done by providing revenue vehicles for legitimate sites like this has to balanced against the harm they've done to the web in general.

They have intentionally created a mystique and tremendous hype. They do very little advertising, and yet many use "Google" as a synonym for "search". They have co-opted the web, so that every web page becomes "their" content, which they monetize.

The store and analyze massive amounts of private correspondence.

They've made largely succesful attempts to ignore copyright laws on published books.

We've given Google the keys to all our content and data, or let them manufature their own "master key", with very little outcry, simply trusting their motives are always pure and their actions always good.

Google wants their engine to be the gate through which all content passes. When someone starts building gates around your property, perhaps an "extreme" reaction is the appropriate one.

Completely blocking Google is a reasonable response to the environment Google has created.

Finally, some truth in advertising:

[IMG]http://www.tgreer.com/truth.jpg[/IMG]

It's Science Fiction, but Baxter knows his stuff. Each book in the Manifold series uses the same characters, but the plots are different. It's not a traditional series in that sense. Each book addresses the Fermi Paradox in a different way.

You should read Stephen Baxter's "Manifold" series. "Manifold Space", in particular.

As a programmer, I'm willing to share my expertise with others. That's why I participate in sites like Daniweb.

However, I admit that as a freelance consultant, I want my site, and my forum postings to a lesser extent, to act as a showcase for my talent. I want potential clients to see my "code snippets" in a larger context, a context I want to control. "Here's how to solve this small common problem, but look around and see what I could do on a larger scale for your organization".

Really, "code" is not unique in this respect. All web content is embedded in the larger context of the host site, and the owner of that site has particular reasons behind the content, and goals for the site.

Search Engines, then, are a mixed blessing. Without them, who would find our sites? We'd have to rely on word-of-mouth and/or traditional advertising. However, when "search engines" become "advertising engines", by monetizing (my) content, they become my competitors. Google, in particular, allows their users to see "cached" copies of pages. Thus, their users can see content outside of its original context.

I place content on my site for a reason. I want my viewers to see it, experience it within the larger context of my site, so that they might be moved to become paying customers.

When Google takes my content, and makes it available to their users, within a Google context of similar results and AdWords …

Time to buy some Sony stock. Seriously, this is such a minor blip for the consumer electronics giant, that it's more of a an opportunity for investors than anything else.

Developers use Linux, but Business uses Windows? I guess that means in the perfect world, no one develops any new applications for Business users? There goes my livelihood.

The most-used OS will have the most viruses (virii?). It's called cause-and-effect.

1. Pick the proper doctype. This forces the browser to adhere to a document standard, rather than rely on its own interpretation/model.

2. Arrange your page into logical blocks of content. The best way to do this is with DIVs and Paragraphs. Why force things into a "tabular" structure if there is nothing tabular about your content?

3. CSS

This approach minimizes browser inconsistencies and greatly eases the maintenance of the site. It also greatly increases the flexibility of your site layout should you choose to have several different "skins", for example.

I think the key here is that you absolutely have to give your pages a "doctype". It's critical.

Presumably if you're in a position where you are faced with reading a 10,000 page document, chances are that you need to READ the document. Any technology that allows me to quickly skip massive chunks of this document would seem to be more of a detriment than benefit.

5612... mainly from forum postings. Oddly, very few of my poetry/publishing related search results for "Thomas D. Greer" were found or contributed to the ranking, even though a strict Google search turns up more of those than tech-related info.

A fun little tool, but I wonder how useful this really is as a metric. I suppose for people making their living via their blog/site it's a nice measure.

You left out a class of email address, where the account name and the domain name are clearly related. That's what I use for business, as I believe such an email address clearly shows that the email originates from a principal and/or owner of the domain/business. One example might be j.doe@johndoe.com.

Nice article.

Very... I imagine the ebay ads would do very well within the hardware forums here.

As to trusting Google with my money, no thank you! The various shenanigans they've pulled with AdWords/AdSense pretty much precludes them being trusted.

I have to give you both hands, then, because I both remember and consistently use JPEG2000. If you use PDFs, you probably do, too.

I also use a little-known image format called DjVu, which uses wavelet-based compression (ala JPEG2000). I developed a "phone-book-on-CD" for a large regional Yellow Pages directory publishers which uses this format. I could find no other way to force 60GB+ worth of full-color, print quality EPS files onto a single CD.

While the news from Microsoft doesn't floor me, the JPEG2000 standard was the "real deal", and has had an impact on the printing and publishing industry.

NOW I know why they haven't been able to fix Internet Explorer's bugs for 3 years. They've obviously been very busy.

My point was that an RIA is usually a sub-component of a much larger system. It's "Step 4" of an ordering process, for example, and does not need to be indexed. The main site/page, of course, does.

By "dumbing-down", I meant that I would never avoid creating an RIA if it provided the best customer service, just because Google can't see it, nor would I craft elaborate work-arounds as described in the original article.

There is a paranoia in the web development community about never doing anything that might adversely affect search engine rank, often based on erroneous, misunderstood, and ever-changing criteria. I was recently asked about how to disable "QUOTE" tags in vBulletin because the webmaster was afraid of "duplicate content penalties", for example.

I have no problem with a site following SEO best practices, but to avoid developing RIA applications based on whether or not Google can crawl your order form or custom car configurator is a ridiculous extreme.

I think it's important to realize that any RIA (Rich Internet Application), whether designed with Ajax, Adobe Flex, or Java, is a different animal than a typical website.

Some typical uses of an RIA are for product ordering interfaces, complex user-driven reporting, custom configuration interfaces, and so on. It really isn't important for search engines to see such interfaces. This is because they are a sub-component of a much larger site/system. While a search engine may get the user in the door, they will be directed to the RIA itself through the normal operation of the system.

Also, if such applications become the norm, it is the Search Engine companys' job to learn how to index them. I'm certainly not going to dumb-down my development projects because of a fault in a search engine. I'll trust that with their better resources and core focus on search technology, they'll catch up.

No, I don't believe Google is the bad buy here, at all. There are related issues, such as caching copyrighted images and material, monetizing cached content, scanning books, to name a few, where I think Google is treading on very thin ice or is outright in the wrong.

But do they promote child pornography? Even I, a Google critic/skeptic, don't go that far. Because doing so would make me, well, silly.

The primary reason I use FireFox is because of the integrated Adblock add-on, and all of the integrated Web Development tools. I can easily validate a page's CSS, HTML, etc. Test it's speed. Resize it to various resolutions, and so on.

"Safety" then isn't the main factor, for me. Usability is.

Not to mention all the brain cancer wireless undoubtedly causes. (Yes, that's sarcasm... please don't send the Wireless Lobbyists after me!)

Good feedback, thanks! My primary motivation for the article was to get people to at least do the minimum to prevent careless or accidental network intrusion.

If you're in a situation where you're pitted against a determined hacker, then perhaps wireless isn't the way to go!

Recently, I noticed some strangeness on my home wireless network. Sometimes the speed would be slower than normal, I couldn't print to my printer, and some of my more advanced router settings (for port forwarding, firewall, etc.) would seem to be "lost".

As it turns out, my laptop was attaching to my next-door-neighbor's network. When I went to help him out, we saw that he could see HIS neighbor's network! Both had failed to do some basic wireless security.

Failing to secure your network could have several negative consequences. First, it's your network. You don't want freeloaders using your bandwidth. You also don't want them seeing your shared folders, using your printer, and downloading questionable or illegal content from your IP address!

So here we go with WiFi 101: security settings.

SSID

It stands for service set identifier, but think of it as your network name. Wireless routers, by default, broadcast their network name. Any device that comes in range can see the network and attempt to connect. Step 1 in securing your network? Stop broadcasting your SSID! Log onto your router (the exact steps vary router by router, but usually you can do this by browsing to http://192.168.0.1 or http://192.168.1.1, and entering a username and password: try 'admin' for both).

Look for a checkbox or radio button that says "Wireless SSID broadcast", and disable it. This means only computers that already know the network name, can find the network.

I have a love-hate relationship with Palm. First, the love: for starters, Palm-based PDAs do everything I want a PDA to do. Just give me the basics, such as a nice contact list, memo/notepad, a to-do list, etc. Palm has always done that, and that's all it really needed to do. If I wanted add-ons, I could buy them, and I've bought some nifty ones, such as a nice timer application, and a city map application with downloadable area maps.

Over my years as a Palm user, there has been plenty to hate, though, as well. To start with, lack of color, and then very poor color. Bad cradles with flimsy latching hardware. ESD discharges which zap your device. Poor design, such as buttons that when inadvertently bumped, turn the Palm on and drain the battery.

I've worked through the issues though, and have always felt smugly superior to those with "WinCE wannabes" in all their me-too mediocrity. As if you really need to edit spreadsheets on a PDA. That's what laptops are for, pal.

Thus, I'm a bit saddened today at Palm's announcement of their first Windows Treo Phone. Yes, it's true that PalmSoft hasn't made a new version of the Palm OS in, well, forever. I will grudgingly admit that Microsoft's Mobile OS is much better at multimedia, which I will also admit is a valid use of a PDA.

I've been holding out, though, for the next new Palm OS, and new models …

Lots of views, but very few opinions/comments. I'm surprised. I personally have mixed feelings. As I said, I'm a bit of a cynic, and the idea of an ever-more pervasive Google rings alarm bells.

On the other hand, widespread, free, Google-sponsored WiFi would have some interesing side-effects. I think it's a given that the service would carry AdSense/AdWords ads. It's no stretch to imagine that they would be geo-targeted to the specific WiFi region. Imagine getting ads from the store across the parking lot. Would those be effective? Think, why click the ad? I'll just walk over, if I'm really interested.

With an increasing number of PDAs and web-enabled cell-phones, widespread free WiFi could spur the development of more "mobile-enabled" web sites.

Discuss? Debate? What impact do you think widespread Google WiFi would have?

Last August, Business 2.0 magazine published an article that speculated Google was considering building a U.S. broadband network capable of targeting specific advertising to users, based on the location of their WiFi. The so-called "Google.net"" or "Google WiFi" caused much speculation, however, the company remained close-lipped.

Tuesday, Google finally made an official announcement. Google spokesman Nate Tyler said the current test is limited to two public sites near the company's Mountain View, California, headquarters: a pizza parlor and a gym.

These two sites join a Google-sponsored Wi-Fi "hotspot" in San Francisco's Union Square shopping district.

"Google WiFi is a community outreach program to offer free wireless access in areas near our headquarters," Tyler said.

"At this stage in development, we're focused on collecting feedback from users. We'll determine next steps as the product evolves," he said.

There you have it! Google WiFi is a "community outreach program". That sounds innocent enough, and apparently Google has no immediate plans to become an ISP, put WiFi providers out of business, or otherwise take over the world.

I admit I'm a bit of a "Google cynic", but I rather like the idea of a corporation extending its technology to the surrounding community. However, the final statement from Mr. Tyler clearly mentions a "product" and active "development" of that product.

What do you see as the potential ramifications of a widespread "Google WiFi" service? I invite your comments.

I don't play this game, but find the above account to be hilarious. Why was this effect "unforeseen"? Presumbably infectious people/characters/avatars spread diseases. That's the very definition of "infectious". Of course this would happen! Hopefully the game developers won't "fix" this, as it is a realistic depiction of a real-world epidemic. Game players should have to adapt to cope with this new turn of events.

Hi William. Thanks for your reply. That actually sounds like a good interviewer. I'm curious, what was the term used to advertise the position? Programmer? Web Developer? ASP Developer?

I have to give you a bit of light-hearted harassment, though... you might like my blog entry on "l33tsp33k".

I too had the "computer store" experience. Programming is my second career. I sold customized accounting software that ran on PCs and "Baby 36" systems (IBM mid-range systems). Fortunately, I could see the writing on the wall and got out before PCs became a commodity.

Another thing I want to clarify: when I speak of web applications, I'm not talking about your typical "site". For example, I developed the first complete eCommerce application for the commercial printing industry, with real-time proofing (dynamic PDF production). Later, with a staff of developers and designers, and two years of work, we turned it into a full-scale application.

It took orders, dynamically generated press-ready artwork, properly calculated interstate taxes, imposed the artwork, had a very robust pricing model (if you've ever had a print job estimated, you have some inkling of what that would involve), and maintained complete order history.

When I say "took orders", we're talking about customizable print pieces. The form module alone, which allowed a dynamic data-entry form for each and every piece, was probably thousands of lines of code.

We supported various online payment methods. It had a complete administrative interface. It supported multi-tiered buying (you can place an order, but need so-and-so's approval). Spending limits.

It supported co-branding, so that based on your login, it picked the correct color scheme and logos, plus populated your inventory.

The list of features goes on and on, and this system by now (it's still in use) …

...and since I'm a literary nut, I have to say that people so often misunderstand that Shakespearean line you quoted. In fact, the point was that a name DOES matter. Juliet was displaying irony, as she had just fallen in love with Romeo, a member of her family's archenemy. That fact, that his name was "Montague", made all the tragic difference.

Noble sentiments. While I recognize that my original post has an elitist tone, I hope you recognize that it was to some extent tongue-in-cheek.

The primary motivation for the article was the perception I often encounter among potential employers and clients that a "web developer" is the same thing as a "web designer", and that neither is as good as a "real" programmer. In fact, they often lump us into the same category as those cheesy template pushers you describe. If that's the business I wanted to be in, I wouldn't have become a programmer.

A web developer is every bit a programmer, and in fact is often a programmer who has also mastered additional skills.

As for those who throw together "sites" for a quick buck here and there, well… I was coding before they were on the scene, and I'm willing to bet I'll be here when they're off pursuing the next hot thing.

Perhaps the "envy" was just wishful thinking on my part, as it's certainly true that I envy people with strong artistic skills.

Web Developer. Webmaster. Web Designer. What do these terms mean? Which one are you? In fact, these terms have been used and misused so much that they are in danger of losing any distinct meaning. This article attempts to define and defend these labels and their meanings.

"Webmaster" in particular has been diluted to the point where it hardly means anything at all. In the proverbial "early days" of the web, it meant a person who had both the hardware and software knowledge to

- setup and configure a web server
- register a domain
- find a good ISP, and get IP addresses
- put up a web page

Today, a "webmaster" is more often than not the person in your office who "updates" your website. They may not do any of the above, or know HTML. I don't think it's possible to rescue any technical prestige for the "Webmaster" designation. Let's admit it, it was just too cute from the beginning, and if Howard in Accounting wants to call himself your company Webmaster, just let him.

That leaves us with "Web Designer" and "Web Developer". It's my position that these two terms still mean something, and that those of us who truly are one or the other, should protect these labels from misuse, and from the unworthy.

Before we differentiate them, let's define what they have in common:

- thorough knowledge of HTML
- thorough knowledge of CSS

McAfee, Inc., a leader in intrusion prevention, announced that its security services group, Foundstone Professional Services, will release a whitepaper on Microsoft ASP.NET Forms Authentication and "cookie replay" attacks. The whitepaper will be located at http://www.foundstone.com/index.htm?subnav=resources/navigation.htm&subcontent=/resources/whitepapers.htm. In response, Microsoft authored an MSDN article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;900111.

What is a "cookie replay" attack? When authentication information is stored in a cookie, an attacker who gains access to that cookie can authenticate back to the web application.

The particular vulnerability in ASP.NET Forms Authentication, is that even if the cookie is explicitly removed, no persistent record of that is stored server-side. So, the credentials could still be used to authenticate to the web application. Also, even though cookies can have an expiration date (and always should!), ASP.NET actually uses a " forms authentication ticket" to determine if a cookie is still valid. This can allow an "expired" cookie to still be seen as valid by the ASP.NET application.

Both the Foundstone/MacAffee whitepaper, and the MSDN article, give advice for how to plug this potential security hole.

Most ASP.NET Developers have no previous web development experience. Is that a true or false statement? I suspect it's true, but found no statistics to back it up. However, judging from posts in several technical forum sites, one certainly gets that impression.

"Halt App Until JavaScript Confirm Dialog Clicked". "JavaScript in code-behind problem". "How to fire ASP.NET code from JavaScript function". "Confirm delete". These are all titles of recent questions posted in various .NET forums. Also, I've seen a resurgence of questions that web developers either solved, or came to grips with, many years ago. For example, I've seen several discussions about how to "prevent" the user from clicking the "back" button! Another common area of confusion is the difference between client-side and server-side events and scripts. Why all of the confusion? I believe it's intrinsic to ASP.NET development.

One of the key "features" of ASP.NET is that it hides the HTML and JavaScript from the developer. ASP.NET consists of a large set of "ASP.NET Server Controls", which are placed by the developer onto a canvas called a "Web Form". Then the developer codes properties and event methods. Sound familiar? Yes, ASP.NET development was modeled after Visual Basic. This no doubt contributes to the wide appeal among traditional Windows developers.

Each ASP.NET Server Control "renders" or "outputs" HTML when the user browses to a page. In fact, a control may render different HTML, depending on the user's browser. In theory, this is a good thing. The developer …

I more or less agree. However, I get a chuckle out of all the spelling and punctuation errors in your post! If you're arguing for formality in forum discussions, then pull the rafter from your eye, brother!

speach = speech
forumns = forums (or even more properly, "fora")
its = it's
lets = let's or "let us"
formerly = formally

Janine,

So, how do you feel about proper puncutation and capitalization?

Welcome to Daniweb; thanks for your thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen, it isn't an active disrespect. That is to say, it isn't an angst-induced act of rebellion to protest societal misconceptions about youth, technology, or some other nebulous cause. In most cases when I ask someone in a forum to use "real English" in future postings, they readily agree. They didn't even realize it was an issue. In other words, it isn't arrogance; it's ignorance.

I wonder too, about the underlying causes. James Gleick wrote a book in which he describes "hurry sickness". In the paperback edition of the book, entitled "Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything", the cover graphic displays "FSTR", and the author's name is rendered as "JMS GLCK". No coincidence, though he doesn't specifically discuss "txt spk" (also known as "l33t sp33k", derived from "elite speech", I'm told).

Is the phenomenon, then, a result of the increased pace of information flow? Are we so inundated with information, and a cultural imperative to do things FASTER, that we feel compelled to think and write in short, intense bursts? There's just not enough time to spell check, no time to even hit the "shift" key, and forget about re-reading and editing for clarity. We've no time for punctuation, either, except to make "smilies" - a condensation of a complete emotional state into two or three characters.

I'll admit it right up front: I'm an old guy, and this is a "kids these days" rant. Pull up your pants, comb your hair, and for Pete's sake, learn to type! I'm referring to what is variously known as "txt lingo", "txt msg spk", or my own term: laziness.

Something you youngsters may not know: you didn't invent online shorthand. There were computers before the Internet, and online "chat" communities before there were web forums. That's right, my old CompuServe "CB" cronies and I invented "lol" and :) back when you were still playing Nintendo Gameboys.

Ok, enough of the "old curmudgeon" act. I want to make a serious case for proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar within professional forum postings. First let's examine some reasons why it's so prevalent.

When asked (read: "when I flamed her about it"), one forum member explained she "was in a hurry, needed an answer fast, and it was just faster to type".

Well, yes, it is faster, once you're used to it. Marginally. After all, it evolved in the chat rooms and bulletin boards, with sometimes dozens and even hundreds of people all talking at once, trying to get a reply in before the conversation scrolled away.

While it may be faster to type, is it faster to read? No. While the brain is very good at recognizing word shapes, it does take more concentrated effort to parse the title of this article than it would if I'd …

Tried, and Denied.

I decided to try Google Destop 2.0 Beta. After about 5 minutes, I uninstalled the program. Why? It has nothing to do with the, no doubt, fabulous features. The reason is the user interface.

The Google Desktop violates a fundemental tenant of user interface design: it overrides the choices the user has made.

We're given the choice of either docking the Google Deskop on the left, or the right. Well, I've placed certain specific icons in those places. What does the application do? MOVE THEM!

Well, that simply won't do. So I explored some more choices, perhaps to use the "floating deskbar". However, as soon as you expand it, it docks, and your icons are shunted aside, or otherwise rearranged.

Ok, well, I don't really need or care for all those panels. If I remove some of them, then the Desktop will be shorter/smaller, and perhaps won't scramble my desktop. Right? Wrong. The Google Desktop, apparently, is always "full screen height".

All mainstream applications I use/know, allow the user to change the size of the main application window. Not Google Desktop. Thus they break another fundamental rule of good application design: they don't adhere to user expectations.

Perhaps when the application gets out of Beta, Google will have ironed out the user interface issues. For one, each panel could be a "tear-away", that the user could position independently. Each panel should be resizable, and support a minimized/maximized functionality. Transparency (translucency) …

One shouldn't have to "opt-out" of a scheme that violates copyright. I've published, and sold material to textbook publishers. In each case, ALL RIGHTS revert back to the author upon publication, at least in the contracts I've signed. If someone wants to re-publish my work, I have to give them "express consent". So in that case, it isn't even up to the publisher to opt-in or opt-out, it's up to the author.

What Google is doing is asserting that they already have the right to scan entire works, and publish whatever portions of them they like, FOR PROFIT (don't tell me you think that the AdWords ads won't be listed on your "search results" page), and that they have that right unless the author and/or publisher gives them an "express denial", via their opt-out procedure.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and if it takes a lawsuit to prove it, then I'm fully on the side of the publishers on this one.

User "YouCan" is spamming via PMs:

Hello "tgreer"

Have you worked with Winforms? Do you understand how to use it with C# pretty well? Would you be interested in a position using UI, C# and Winforms development? I am not sure where you are located? This position would not be for corp-to-corp. You would also have to be eligible to work in the US for any employer.
Looking forward to hearing from ya!
coby
youcan@volt.com

I still maintain your initial approach is wrong. Parsing each other's HTML is not how eCommerce applications behave. But if you want to doggedly press on, then your next web search should be "C# HTML DOM".

I disagree. I think that all threads, in all forums, are conversations. However, if the only thing you have to say is "yeah" or "I agree" then you should use the reputation system.

Yeah, I agree.

What programming language? What web server platform? What IDE?

Please follow normal conventions, spelling, grammar and punctuation when posting. There is no reason for your entire post to be in bold, or not to have spaces between sentences.