|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/10/07 13:03
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:58:38
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>> Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are
>> doing a totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where
>> they include statements something like "...the useragent may
>> determine how it responds to this condition by..." When one
>> endeavors to set standards, there is no place for ambiguity. In
>> addition, their box model sucks and the whole "dom" thing (as now
>> implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some quirky digital
>> primeval foible.
>
> That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing a
> reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are moving
> towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same everywhere. But
> you are right; the standards themselves are terrible, badly formed,
> very hard to understand.
Yes, so how can you call it a "good job"? The fact is they're a bunch of
idiots on-a-par with the "top-5%-of-the-graduating-class" idiots
Microsoft hires to fuck up their company. There is more to intelligence
than high IQ and academic productivity, but, unfortunately, the schleps
of the world haven't seemed to learn this yet.
Even Onideus, with all his self-image-degrading rants, has shown me more
brains than any w3c mope.
>>> There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now:
>>> some of them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs;
>>> and the specs are so complicated (mostly because of all the
>>> historical baggage) that in places they aren't always that easy to
>>> follow.
>>
>> Despite the "good job" the w3c is doing?? Gosh!
>
> Yeah kinda crazy. The XHTML1.0 standards have been around since 1999 -
> not ONE major browser supports the full spec yet. Not a single one! In
> EIGHT years!? So much for standards... They do get 99% of it right,
> but it's just... a mess really.
Xhtml? Well, it would be fair to say that xhtml's full intent or
capabilities are beyond my ken, but from what I've seen so far, it is
completely superfluous and actually detrimental to the standardization of
hypertext rendering in general.
>> <quote>"It is a damn nightmare getting a standalone application
>> installed on the client side. It is simply much easier to install
>> browser-based applications using technology such as Flex than any
>> technology that Microsoft has so far come up with. I still have
>> nightmares over failed .Net installs that would take out other client
>> applications when trying to install our own software in my previous
>> job."</quote>
>
>:)
>
> Or AIR... that looks promising (if it gets pst the whole "who the hell
> will install this anyway? hurdle).
Can't fairly comment - don't know it. I need to learn Flex (which will
surely take some time.)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|