[thelist] favicon weirdness

[Peter-Paul Koch]

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.

My cynicism is in this case not directed at Explorer or its development 
team, but at the particular *story* 
"Microsoft-employees-ask-about-standards-so-Explorer-must-become-standards-compliant". 
I do not believe in that story and am pretty cynical about the wishful 
thinking web developers reveal by telling and re-telling it.

>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.

Yes, that's a good summary.

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.

I'm making a strong statement because I hope for reactions. Please give me 
an example of something an application running on the client side can do and 
the W3C DOM can't. (Except for saving data back to the server, that doesn't 
work yet in the W3C DOM).

>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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?

Example, please.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
ppk, freelance web developer
Interaction, copywriting, JavaScript, integration
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/
Column "Keep it Simple": http://www.digital-web.com/columns/keepitsimple/
New: Browser Wars II: The Saga Continues
http://evolt.org/article/rdf/25/60181/
------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail