Web Standards.. Again
-
I know this topic is near death by talking, but It's my first post on the matter. With the current state of Web Standards development of online applications is becoming harder and harder in its era of growth. More and more applications are becoming browser based. I happen to know that one of the largest legacy programs ever written is being web based and "Ajax enabled" for it's next release (This program has not had its core updated for 15 years (no it isn't a Microsoft product)). One of the only real problems they are having is the CSS standards. As many of you know the CSS standards where a dud from the beginning, and without a major cross browser standards update. The W3C is all talk at the moment. It has become the nagging aunt that after a while you want to do nothing but the opposite of what they say. Their standards are just being taken as suggestions. In my opinion there needs to be a redevelopment of the HTTP protocol and all that it entails. With the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol. Servers could be reconfigured to only be accessible to compliant browsers. Maybe that would be a nice side project for me....
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
-
I know this topic is near death by talking, but It's my first post on the matter. With the current state of Web Standards development of online applications is becoming harder and harder in its era of growth. More and more applications are becoming browser based. I happen to know that one of the largest legacy programs ever written is being web based and "Ajax enabled" for it's next release (This program has not had its core updated for 15 years (no it isn't a Microsoft product)). One of the only real problems they are having is the CSS standards. As many of you know the CSS standards where a dud from the beginning, and without a major cross browser standards update. The W3C is all talk at the moment. It has become the nagging aunt that after a while you want to do nothing but the opposite of what they say. Their standards are just being taken as suggestions. In my opinion there needs to be a redevelopment of the HTTP protocol and all that it entails. With the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol. Servers could be reconfigured to only be accessible to compliant browsers. Maybe that would be a nice side project for me....
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
Bradml wrote:
the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol
Getting all the browser developers to agree on a standard is like herding cats. :~ Each has their own idea about where they want to go and it isn't in the same direction as the others. :rolleyes:
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
Bradml wrote:
the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol
Getting all the browser developers to agree on a standard is like herding cats. :~ Each has their own idea about where they want to go and it isn't in the same direction as the others. :rolleyes:
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
That's why I suggest a new protocol. If they don't want to comply then bugger them, they can go be intuitive and revolutionary on their own. Here is my idea of the standards, Define CSS, HTML, JavaScript etc standards completely. Allow browsers to add extra content as long as it does not interfere with the current standards. If the browser does not support ALL standards it is shunned. And the Protocol, (Ignoring all the functionality improvements). Every time a browser is set up the user has to create a license for that browser. When the company develops the browser they approve it and purchase a license type. Now when the user goes to get the Protocol license they download a validation tool that checks the browser is the correct browser for the license. (This could be done by checking the name of the application and the names of the files in the application folder because it would mean that browsers had to change their name to receive another browsers license.) If everything matches up the user is granted a unique license code, and the browser is granted a unique code as well) Every time the user connects to a page then the license code and the browser code is sent to the server. The server then confirms the browser license and the user license are in the records and are approved. If everything matches up the user receives the page they have requested as per normal. Now this sounds like and extreme disadvantage to the user, but really it would just be clicking a button to download the validation software and checking the certificate they have been approved for is for the browser they are using.
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
-
I know this topic is near death by talking, but It's my first post on the matter. With the current state of Web Standards development of online applications is becoming harder and harder in its era of growth. More and more applications are becoming browser based. I happen to know that one of the largest legacy programs ever written is being web based and "Ajax enabled" for it's next release (This program has not had its core updated for 15 years (no it isn't a Microsoft product)). One of the only real problems they are having is the CSS standards. As many of you know the CSS standards where a dud from the beginning, and without a major cross browser standards update. The W3C is all talk at the moment. It has become the nagging aunt that after a while you want to do nothing but the opposite of what they say. Their standards are just being taken as suggestions. In my opinion there needs to be a redevelopment of the HTTP protocol and all that it entails. With the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol. Servers could be reconfigured to only be accessible to compliant browsers. Maybe that would be a nice side project for me....
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
`'m not jumping on this bandwagon, until I get a web-based browser :rolleyes:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
That's why I suggest a new protocol. If they don't want to comply then bugger them, they can go be intuitive and revolutionary on their own. Here is my idea of the standards, Define CSS, HTML, JavaScript etc standards completely. Allow browsers to add extra content as long as it does not interfere with the current standards. If the browser does not support ALL standards it is shunned. And the Protocol, (Ignoring all the functionality improvements). Every time a browser is set up the user has to create a license for that browser. When the company develops the browser they approve it and purchase a license type. Now when the user goes to get the Protocol license they download a validation tool that checks the browser is the correct browser for the license. (This could be done by checking the name of the application and the names of the files in the application folder because it would mean that browsers had to change their name to receive another browsers license.) If everything matches up the user is granted a unique license code, and the browser is granted a unique code as well) Every time the user connects to a page then the license code and the browser code is sent to the server. The server then confirms the browser license and the user license are in the records and are approved. If everything matches up the user receives the page they have requested as per normal. Now this sounds like and extreme disadvantage to the user, but really it would just be clicking a button to download the validation software and checking the certificate they have been approved for is for the browser they are using.
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
Bradml wrote:
If the browser does not support ALL standards it is shunned.
Bradml wrote:
Every time a browser is set up the user has to create a license for that browser.
Would that mean that you would shun IE because it doesn't conform to "standards"? X|
Bradml wrote:
Every time the user connects to a page then the license code and the browser code is sent to the server. The server then confirms the browser license and the user license are in the records and are approved... If everything matches up the user receives the page they have requested as per normal.
Just which server are you talking about? :confused: What if the server administration doesn't care to go along with your scheme? :suss: What about the 95+% of people using IE? :~
Bradml wrote:
Now this sounds like and extreme disadvantage to the user, but really it would just be clicking a button to download the validation software and checking the certificate they have been approved for is for the browser they are using.
Who would be the "keeper of the keys"? :rolleyes:
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
`'m not jumping on this bandwagon, until I get a web-based browser :rolleyes:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
Bradml wrote:
If the browser does not support ALL standards it is shunned.
Bradml wrote:
Every time a browser is set up the user has to create a license for that browser.
Would that mean that you would shun IE because it doesn't conform to "standards"? X|
Bradml wrote:
Every time the user connects to a page then the license code and the browser code is sent to the server. The server then confirms the browser license and the user license are in the records and are approved... If everything matches up the user receives the page they have requested as per normal.
Just which server are you talking about? :confused: What if the server administration doesn't care to go along with your scheme? :suss: What about the 95+% of people using IE? :~
Bradml wrote:
Now this sounds like and extreme disadvantage to the user, but really it would just be clicking a button to download the validation software and checking the certificate they have been approved for is for the browser they are using.
Who would be the "keeper of the keys"? :rolleyes:
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
JimmyRopes wrote:
Would that mean that you would shun IE because it doesn't conform to "standards"?
Ahh you have been paying attention.
JimmyRopes wrote:
Just which server are you talking about?
The server of the web page that the user is trying to connect to.
JimmyRopes wrote:
What if the server administration doesn't care to go along with your scheme?
Well I can guarantee I'm not the only developer who is fed up with the lack of standards.
JimmyRopes wrote:
What about the 95+% of people using IE
IE would become obsolete unless MS conformed.
JimmyRopes wrote:
Who would be the "keeper of the keys"?
Chris M of course.
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
-
I know this topic is near death by talking, but It's my first post on the matter. With the current state of Web Standards development of online applications is becoming harder and harder in its era of growth. More and more applications are becoming browser based. I happen to know that one of the largest legacy programs ever written is being web based and "Ajax enabled" for it's next release (This program has not had its core updated for 15 years (no it isn't a Microsoft product)). One of the only real problems they are having is the CSS standards. As many of you know the CSS standards where a dud from the beginning, and without a major cross browser standards update. The W3C is all talk at the moment. It has become the nagging aunt that after a while you want to do nothing but the opposite of what they say. Their standards are just being taken as suggestions. In my opinion there needs to be a redevelopment of the HTTP protocol and all that it entails. With the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol. Servers could be reconfigured to only be accessible to compliant browsers. Maybe that would be a nice side project for me....
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
The answer to all our prayers :-D
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
Would that mean that you would shun IE because it doesn't conform to "standards"?
Ahh you have been paying attention.
JimmyRopes wrote:
Just which server are you talking about?
The server of the web page that the user is trying to connect to.
JimmyRopes wrote:
What if the server administration doesn't care to go along with your scheme?
Well I can guarantee I'm not the only developer who is fed up with the lack of standards.
JimmyRopes wrote:
What about the 95+% of people using IE
IE would become obsolete unless MS conformed.
JimmyRopes wrote:
Who would be the "keeper of the keys"?
Chris M of course.
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
Bradml wrote:
The server of the web page that the user is trying to connect to.
That would mean that every server administrator would have to buy into your plan. In other words, that would be like herding cats! :rolleyes:
Bradml wrote:
Well I can guarantee I'm not the only developer who is fed up with the lack of standards.
Me too, but in a practical sense I don't expect the whole industry to know, or even care, what I think! :~ In the mean time I will continue to develop web pages and test them against some of the more popular browsers. Yes, that does mean that I have to compromise, which I would rather not do. Welcome to the real world! :|
Bradml wrote:
IE would become obsolete unless MS conformed.
Certainly not in my lifetime, and probably not yours either. :suss:
Bradml wrote:
Chris M of course.
I'll second that but Chris would have to work about 25 hours a day! X| We should probably ask him if he is up to the challange. :cool:
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
Bradml wrote:
The server of the web page that the user is trying to connect to.
That would mean that every server administrator would have to buy into your plan. In other words, that would be like herding cats! :rolleyes:
Bradml wrote:
Well I can guarantee I'm not the only developer who is fed up with the lack of standards.
Me too, but in a practical sense I don't expect the whole industry to know, or even care, what I think! :~ In the mean time I will continue to develop web pages and test them against some of the more popular browsers. Yes, that does mean that I have to compromise, which I would rather not do. Welcome to the real world! :|
Bradml wrote:
IE would become obsolete unless MS conformed.
Certainly not in my lifetime, and probably not yours either. :suss:
Bradml wrote:
Chris M of course.
I'll second that but Chris would have to work about 25 hours a day! X| We should probably ask him if he is up to the challange. :cool:
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
JimmyRopes wrote:
That would mean that every server administrator would have to buy into your plan. In other words that would be like herding cats!
A better strategy would be to client the Admins' clients, and explain to them why they would be better off supporting the new protocol.
JimmyRopes wrote:
but in a practical sense I don't expect the whole industry to know, or even care, what I think!
But what about the entire web development community?
JimmyRopes wrote:
compromise
That's how we have had to develop for too long.
JimmyRopes wrote:
I'll second that but Chris would have to work about 25 hours a day! We should probably ask him if he is up to the challange.
Sure he is, Chris can do anything!!!:->
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
-
The answer to all our prayers :-D
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
I've download and install...some examples attacthed is pretty cool:cool:
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
That would mean that every server administrator would have to buy into your plan. In other words that would be like herding cats!
A better strategy would be to client the Admins' clients, and explain to them why they would be better off supporting the new protocol.
JimmyRopes wrote:
but in a practical sense I don't expect the whole industry to know, or even care, what I think!
But what about the entire web development community?
JimmyRopes wrote:
compromise
That's how we have had to develop for too long.
JimmyRopes wrote:
I'll second that but Chris would have to work about 25 hours a day! We should probably ask him if he is up to the challange.
Sure he is, Chris can do anything!!!:->
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
Bradml wrote:
A better strategy would be to client the Admins' clients, and explain to them why they would be better off supporting the new protocol.
Good luck! Most people are end users and they want their web content regardless of what is going on behind the scenes. :doh:
Bradml wrote:
But what about the entire web development community?
A bunch of whining ... [you fill in the blank]. :rolleyes:
Bradml wrote:
That's how we have had to develop for too long.
And that is how it is going to continue. :~ You forget the basic principle of the web, no one has complete control. The web (and DARPA NET before it [yes I am old enough to have worked on it]) was based on the premise that it should be resilient. ;) No one should own it and limit it's possibilities! :cool: That means no one! The web is bigger than any entity, including governments. :cool:
Bradml wrote:
Sure he is, Chris can do anything!!!
I agree, but we should still ask him if he wants to work an additional 25 hours after completing his normal 27 hours/day commitment to CP. ;)
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
That's why I suggest a new protocol. If they don't want to comply then bugger them, they can go be intuitive and revolutionary on their own. Here is my idea of the standards, Define CSS, HTML, JavaScript etc standards completely. Allow browsers to add extra content as long as it does not interfere with the current standards. If the browser does not support ALL standards it is shunned. And the Protocol, (Ignoring all the functionality improvements). Every time a browser is set up the user has to create a license for that browser. When the company develops the browser they approve it and purchase a license type. Now when the user goes to get the Protocol license they download a validation tool that checks the browser is the correct browser for the license. (This could be done by checking the name of the application and the names of the files in the application folder because it would mean that browsers had to change their name to receive another browsers license.) If everything matches up the user is granted a unique license code, and the browser is granted a unique code as well) Every time the user connects to a page then the license code and the browser code is sent to the server. The server then confirms the browser license and the user license are in the records and are approved. If everything matches up the user receives the page they have requested as per normal. Now this sounds like and extreme disadvantage to the user, but really it would just be clicking a button to download the validation software and checking the certificate they have been approved for is for the browser they are using.
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
-
I know this topic is near death by talking, but It's my first post on the matter. With the current state of Web Standards development of online applications is becoming harder and harder in its era of growth. More and more applications are becoming browser based. I happen to know that one of the largest legacy programs ever written is being web based and "Ajax enabled" for it's next release (This program has not had its core updated for 15 years (no it isn't a Microsoft product)). One of the only real problems they are having is the CSS standards. As many of you know the CSS standards where a dud from the beginning, and without a major cross browser standards update. The W3C is all talk at the moment. It has become the nagging aunt that after a while you want to do nothing but the opposite of what they say. Their standards are just being taken as suggestions. In my opinion there needs to be a redevelopment of the HTTP protocol and all that it entails. With the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol. Servers could be reconfigured to only be accessible to compliant browsers. Maybe that would be a nice side project for me....
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
no standard is a good standard
-
I know this topic is near death by talking, but It's my first post on the matter. With the current state of Web Standards development of online applications is becoming harder and harder in its era of growth. More and more applications are becoming browser based. I happen to know that one of the largest legacy programs ever written is being web based and "Ajax enabled" for it's next release (This program has not had its core updated for 15 years (no it isn't a Microsoft product)). One of the only real problems they are having is the CSS standards. As many of you know the CSS standards where a dud from the beginning, and without a major cross browser standards update. The W3C is all talk at the moment. It has become the nagging aunt that after a while you want to do nothing but the opposite of what they say. Their standards are just being taken as suggestions. In my opinion there needs to be a redevelopment of the HTTP protocol and all that it entails. With the turn of the century developers need more from the protocol. Servers could be reconfigured to only be accessible to compliant browsers. Maybe that would be a nice side project for me....
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
Yes, every windows developer that ever steps into the minefield that is web development can't help but goggle at absolute lack of standards. It's a joke really. The internet has become so integral to modern civilization and no one has the balls to fix it's standards. I wouldn't hold out much hope, just do what works and smile and nod at the standardistas who don't quite get how pitiful their "standards" are already.
-
Brad Australian I assume Microsoft would not use doors, because using Windows is faster.
damn.... :searching for another excuse:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!