[thelist] RE: [ - Examples of Importing XML into Netscape or Mozilla? - ]

[Michael KImsal]

Peter Thoenen wrote:

>We are not here to discuss bugs (try in 100% css1
>complaint IE 6 using a xhtml1.1 doctype <input
>type="checkbox" style="border: 1px solid #000000"
>name="" value=""/> and tell me what you get..100% css1
>complaint huh) ... we are talking about how Mozilla
>hampers web development (with applications).
>
>I can't think of a single web application in my life I
>have developed or even seen that I needed THE CLIENT
>(or end user) to print the source to a form submitted
>to itself.
>

What I initially wrote:
"Things that are painfully obvious to anyone who works with web
applications
are still broken.  "

Sorry - my mistake.  I should have said "writes" instead of "works with".

Because this is what my company does, we're perhaps closer to the
problems than most people.  However, it *will* have a worsening effect
on the acceptance of Mozilla in a roundabout way.

Because IE is still the friendliest in terms of web development day
in/day out
stuff (view source, view frame/page info, etc)  it's what most people
will continue
to use to test web applications.  That *is* the primary testing platform
for
everyone I know.  If there's time left to test under other platforms,
great.  If not,
the obligatory "best used with IE" stuff goes up.

This feeds on itself, and contributes (in whatever small way) to IE's
continued domination.  Until another browser gives as many
niceties to developers, other browsers will continue to be second fiddle,
if only because of pure economics.  I'll make sure something works on the
dev platform first, others second.

This is my perspective (and that of many of the people I know) regarding
web application  development.  Other development scenarios may be different.

>But maybe thats just me (wouldn't be the
>first time I have been wrong), maybe you have some odd
>clients that like the ability to do this, I would like
>to meet these clients though, hell maybe I can quit
>using dynamic pdf generation to print invoices and
>just tell them to print the source for their financial
>records.
>
>As for printing the visual page on the screen, I don't
>exactly see how this hampers me or you either.  Sure
>we all would like to keep the bandwidth bill low but
>is it really a show stopper, nope.  Its an annoyance
>and one that is fixed as you kindly stated.  Now when
>you get done complaining about specific Mozilla bugs
>that don't effect web development (as in
>applications)..maybe you can point me to some code
>that Mozilla can't do but is required for your web
>applications to run (or hell..even code that makes you
>life as a developer more difficult).
>
We've been banging our heads against issues with trying to invoke
XUL applications from remote servers.  There are a number of issues
with both execution, security, and error handling that I'd have figured
would have been addressed or even known about at this stage in the game,
but we're still finding them.  Application development (developing
Mozilla-based client side apps to enhance the web application) is severely
hampered by this.  It's a constantly moving target - I can only hope
that something freezes with 1.0, but by the same token I don't want a
'frozen'
standard that is broken/buggy.

These "specific bugs" affect web application development because they slow
everything down when using/testing on Mozilla.  I'm 'complaining' about
things
because earlier in the thread people had this idea that "if only the
Mozilla team
got serious about XML stuff, they'd do some demo apps".  I was pointing out
they're NOT that serious about delivering something to 'best' IE,
they're writing
something to satisfy themselves, and it's not very likely they'll put
out the
type of developer demo apps someone was asking for.

"Development" and "applications" are two different things.  If
development is
slowed the application can suffer if only because it took longer to be
released, depriving end users of its  functionality.

Mozilla in particular seems to be playing catchup/copycat more often
than not -
good features still, but there are things they could put in that they
won't, at least
until after MS does, then everyone will copy them yet again.  I'm
talking relatively
simple stuff like a file upload progress bar (requested of Mozilla
development
team years ago).  *minor* feature like that would give them huge
mindshare/press
and admiration from end users as something innovative no one else is
doing yet.