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

Peter Thoenen eol1 at yahoo.com
Wed May 22 21:20:00 CDT 2002


I submit :) ... 99% of my web application development
is in database apps.  Not a huge client side  XML guy.
 (Other than what I need to know to create client
frontends).  I will admit though that I am glad you
took the time to put me in my place :) instead of
blindy saying "because thats just the way it is" .
Hats off to you for that.  Only reason I went
defensive was in my experience, I haven't ever seen
ANY browser affecting how i develop my applications
(other than visual niceties) and felt Mozilla was
unduley (?sp) being slandering for no apparent reason,
not really a stab at you personally.

Cheers,

-Peter (who goes back to lurking on the list)


--- Michael KImsal <michael at tapinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of thelist go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com



More information about the thelist mailing list