Are they different enough from 1.1 ACLs that the 1.1 code does not apply?

So, I cannot get ACLs to fucking work. First of all, CakePHP: Why am I using the still-beta 1.2? Well, it is (1) because there are so many improved nice new features that I did not want to not have them, (2) the Cake team's "beta" is actually quite stable, and (3) I did not want to climb the learning curve twice. Okay, so, then does the code on this page http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/real-world-access-control not apply to CakePHP 1.2 ACLs? This is by far the clearest, simplest description of CakePHP ACL implementation (and ACLs in general) that I've found but it doesn't fucking work! Aarrgh! I found this page http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/how-to-use-acl-in-1-2-x and that is helpful, except for the follwoing questions now: Why is there a call to $acl->create() at all? I tried these examples without that call and it seems like the create() call is not needed. Does create() even do anything at all? Has create() been superceded by save()? Did save() exist in ACL 1.1? Allright, maybe if I ever get a chance I'll add the answers to these questions.

Or, at least /incompletely/ and /buggily/ implemented.

Being a Linux user, the first question I ask when using a website that doesn't work is: "Is this because I am using desktop Linux?" In other words, "Would this website, which is apparently broken, actually work in, say, MSIE on Windows or Safari on Mac?" Now, regarding the Cake Bakery, I ask myself this question all the time. Because the Bakery is very, very buggy. Broken, even.

Articles disapear randomly

Articles come up with blank pages all the time, for no apparent reason

Code snippets are often buggy and incomplete (not the Bakery's fault, per se)

Little things don't work like I imagine they should. Like "Comments" on articles -- why can't you use anything but letters in the comment title??? That's just plain dumb.

Article dates are often impossibly incorrect. 12-31-1969, for example, or, 1-22-1999. 1999?? CakePHP did not exist then, AFAIK.

The "Search" form does not work all the time (i.e. randomly blank results pages similar to the randomly blank articles pages)

The "Search" form really, really, really should have a "Go" or "Submit" button. Why the fuck does it not have a Submit button?? and so on...

Okay, so, XHTML has been the newest, "best" version of HTML for what, six, seven years now? But I still don't see valid reasons to us it for an HTML website intended for public consumption. Here is why. Mostly this bulleted list is so I can have a handful of talking points when some new kid says, "We gotta be using XHTML 1.0!" False!

Okay, so, this has been discussed before. Some references: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/12026.htm Reasons Browsers still have troubles with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type. Serving XHTML as HTML to support non-xhtml supporting browser removes any advantage of using XHTML HTML 4.01 STRICT is a very strict, very well supported, very functional HTML definition that does everything that general HTML consumption needs. Must use core DOM methods in JS HTML comments differences Other general incompatibilities. XHTML can be transformed into HTML 4.01 strict with, say, XLS. But this strikes me as unnecessary overhead unless one has needs that can only be addressed by using XML. Y'know, just because a technology exists, and is the newest thing, does not make it the best thing to use, in any given situation, or, even, ever.

I am neither a Flash nor a Silverlight nor a .NET developer. So in trying to figure out what is analogous to what, I have worked up this chart.

Silverlight? Flash? WTF? Why do companies push new technologies when existing ones already do everything the new one does? Okay, well, whatever, that's irrelevant to the post at hand, which is, in the new world of Silverlight development, what is the Flash (or Java) equivalent? I think a good description of Silverlight, using existing equivalents as analogy, is something like, "Flash but using XAML and VB.NET (well, or Python (cool!) or Ruby (also cool!)) instead of SWF and Actionscript". Here goes Silverlight Component Flash Equivalent Java Equivalent Comments Resources http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/comparison_flash_svg/