html - Closing empty tags: XHTML5 or HTML5? Why one over the other?

After reading extensively about HTML5 and XHTML5 and after
reading this post: href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3558119/are-non-void-self-closing-tags-valid-in-html5?rq=1">Are
(non-void) self-closing tags valid in HTML5? , I have got a very simple
question:

"Is there a reason why it would be
good to serialise HTML5 as XML?"

I
understand:

• the
  differences between HTML, XHTML, XML and HTML5


• that it's
  good practice to nest elements correctly, use lower case letters, quote attributes,
  close tags etc...


• that HTML5 has no DTD while XHTML has
  got a DTD and an XML parse



• that if I specify a
  page as XHTML5 (HTML5 doctype + XHTML schema) some browsers might not process the page
  for minor errors
  etc...

So the question
is:

"In which case would it be good to follow
very strict XML rules when doing an HTML5
page?"

Above all when it comes to things
like

1) The void
elements

            src="asdsad.jpg" /> compared with 

            compared with 
 comparted with
            

2)
Checked, download etc..
like

            name="vehicle" value="Car" checked> VS
            name="vehicle" value="Car" checked="checked"
            />

Should
I just write following the HTML5 standard and implement as much common sense as possible
(lower case, good nesting) or is there A GOOD REASON for a standard company website to
be coded in XHTML5?

What is the EAFP principle in Python?

I'll try to explain it with another
example.

Here we're trying to access
the file and print the contents in console.

LBYL - Look Before You Leap
:

We might want to check if we can access the
file and if we can, we'll open it and print the contents. If we can't access the file
we'll hit the else part. The reason that this is a race
condition is because we first make an access-check. By the time we reach
with open(my_file) as f: maybe we can't access it anymore due
to some permission issues (for example another process gains an exclusive file lock).
This code will likely throw an error and we won't be able to catch that error because we
thought that we could access the
file.

import
            os

my_file =
            "/path/to/my/file.txt"


# Race condition
if
            os.access(my_file, os.R_OK):
 with open(my_file) as f:

            print(f.read())
else:
 print("File can't be
            accessed")

EAFP -
Easier to Ask for Forgiveness than Permission
:

In this example, we're just trying
to open the file and if we can't open it, it'll throw an
IOError. If we can, we'll open the file and print the contents.
So instead of asking something we're trying to
do it. If it works, great! If it doesn't we catch the error and handle
it.

# # No race
            condition
try:
 f = open(my_file)
except IOError as
            e:
 print("File can't be accessed")
else:
 with
            f:


            print(f.read())

plot explanation - What did David say to the engineer in Prometheus?

In href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/">Prometheus, when the android
David is talking with the Engineer, first he stumbles a bit and stays crouched, then
they are all asking him questions and David seems to translate it. Then they all stand
up, the Engineer strokes his chair and snaps.

My question
is, did the Engineer destroy David and go on a rampage because of what he said, or did
he have another reason for that? If so, What did David say to the
Engineer?

itemprop="text">

class="normal">Answer

Edit:
Now we know. In an interview revealed at Total Film with Dr. Anil
Biltoo:

Well,
according to Dr. Anil Biltoo, the film’s official translator and linguistics consultant,
David did as he was asked, translating his words as follows: “This man is here because
he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more
life.”

The rest
of the text of this article stands unedited except for the interview inserts, in
italics.

We are forced to reconcile the
reaction of the Engineer
with:

• His/it's original mission, to
  destroy the Earth.


• His/it's momentary pause as it
  analyzes the situation upon awakening


• His/it's decision
  to kill the team and continue its primary
  mission.

Does David betray his creator? His pathological hatred of all of humanity is
obvious to us, but not necessarily to them. Would he use the opportunity to ask a
different question than he was asked or would he comply out of duty (or programming). My
suspicion is David asked exactly what he was told by Weyland. Not that it
mattered, the Engineer answered only with his actions to kill the
team.

My
supposition still stands and is supported in the rest of the Total Film interview
review:

So there we have it. David wasn’t up to anything sinister, it just
turned out that the Engineer wasn’t best pleased to be interrupted by a member of the
species he was charged with destroying. Apparently, the scene was initially written to
involve a much longer conversation, so perhaps more details will emerge in the deleted
material on the DVD. Or even in a
sequel...

Why
wouldn't David say what he had been asked to? He is not concerned with the question or
the answer. For him, it is academic at best. He has already made his decision about
humanity and given the information he has up to that point, he assumes the Engineers
already have their own less than stellar opinion of humanity as
well.

However, given the
purported intelligence of the Engineers, and a time-table of their last visit
(approximately 2,000 years ago, during a very warlike period on Earth) once he saw how
violent, humanity had remained, he realized he would have to complete his mission. He
did not seem conflicted in any way.

My suspicion was he
recognized what David was and could extrapolate how long he had been asleep, which may
have given him greater motivation to deliver his payload, fearing a galactic outbreak of
this violent species. The Engineer did not seem surprised to see us, likely as a
diminutive and less impressive form of
itself.

I had the impression
the Engineer did not fear humanity, so much as their lack of individual control. He was
privy to, in a matter of seconds, hierarchical dominance behavior, aggression, anger,
and directed violence. From the aspect of a species that creates life, certainly an
undesirable outcome. Perhaps the same reaction we might have if a beloved pet suddenly
attacked us. We would put it down, for its own good. The Engineer maintained a
surprising level of apparent emotional control during his attack on the team and his
subsequent launching of his ship. He did not appear to have any issues with completing
his mission, so his belief in the necessity was apparent in his actions.

I would also have to credit
this Engineer with some degree of forethought. He was the only one on this ship to make
it back to stasis and secure himself before the pathogen was able to reach him. I
suspect he thought it would be safer to be in stasis than dying in the
halls.

David's experience of
humanity soured him on meeting the Engineers and even though he was intellectually
curious about their technology, he showed no real interest in the Engineers, themselves,
likely considering them as potentially dangerous as he considered mankind. Maybe moreso,
since humanity was based on their DNA. If he did give the Engineer an account of what
happened or how they came to be here, rather than Wayland's requested information, I am
certain, he was surprised with his/it's reaction. It was certainly not an expected
outcome from David's perspective.

java - Constructors with default values of parameters

No it doesn't. Java doesn't support default arguments in
any function; constructors
included.

What you can do though is
define public Shape(int v, int e) and also a default
constructor

public
            Shape()
{
 this(1,
            2);
}

Note the special
syntax here to delegate the construction to the two-argument
constructor.

javascript - How to check if jQuery object exist in array?

itemprop="text">

Given an item
and an array, I would like to know if
item exist in
array.

item
is a jQuery object, e.g. $(".c"). You can assume that
item.length ==
1.

array
is an array of jQuery objects, e.g. [$(".a"), $(".b")]. Each
item in this array may represent 0, 1, or more
objects.

Here is how I thought to implement
this: (live demo
here)

function
            inArray(item, arr) {
 for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
 var
            items = $.makeArray(arr[i]);


 for (var k = 0; k <
            items.length; k++) {
 if (items[k] == item[0]) {
 return
            true;
 }
 }
 }

 return
            false;
}

Can
you find a more elegant implementation?

/>

Example:

HTML:

            class="a">Hello


class="a">Stack