[thelist] favicon weirdness

[Jeff Howden]

ppk,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Peter-Paul Koch
>
> > I think you'll find that IE support for w3 standards
> > will increase substantially. I'm sure it's been
> > mentioned on this list that members of the IE
> > development teams have been checking these things out
> > in various community forums.
>
> That story is just wishful thinking. Is MS engineers
> asking about the standards so weird that it can only
> be explained when they want to make IE standards
> compliant? What a nonsense.
>
> They might add something in the display: list-item
> category, something that is a standard so they can
> brag about it but is completely useless in day to
> day web developing.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

why the cynicism?

from my perspective, the development of ie, and the support of associated
standards isn't taken on for bragging rights.  development teams have much
more important things to do than brag.

if microsoft didn't care about standards, as your tone indicates, then why
even bother supporting the standards to the level ie6 supports them when you
have a commanding portion of the browser market?  if standards aren't
important to microsoft, then why have employees in charge of large portions
of ie-dev involved in the day to day grind of various w3 standards
committees?  no, the truth, is standards are important, but not at the cost
of other goals for the browser.  some things are bound to not make the cut
for one reason or another.  some of those things may end up proving to be
important after the browser's release or they may not.  other things may be
implemented differently than another browser may implement simply because
the wording for that particular standard is ambiguous.  which vendor is
wrong?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Oh, that. You're referring to some new .NET application
> stuff, I suppose.  Now that's all very nice and dandy,
> but for the moment my conclusion is that we don't *need*
> any application stuff because the W3C DOM will serve
> nicely.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and from someone that does web application development (no, not .net) on a
daily basis and has done so for a number of years, i can tell you that w3c
dom doesn't even come close to some of the problems i've encountered.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> We don't need extra's when we have the W3C DOM, except
> for a good way to save XML back to the server, and
> pasting it into a textarea and then submitting the
> textarea is a working, albeit ugly, solution.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

the problem you bring up is only the tip of the iceberg in web-app
development.  there are much bigger issues that aren't even addressed by w3c
dom.  besides, when is it time to move past ugly, sorta-working solutions to
something more elegant, robust, and feature-rich?

respectfully,

.jeff

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Jeff Howden - Web Application Specialist
Résumé - http://jeffhowden.com/about/resume/
Code Library - http://evolt.jeffhowden.com/jeff/code/