|
|
Posted by Rik Wasmus on 01/19/08 17:02
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:51:35 +0100, Jensen Somers
<jensen.somers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> alexander.petrov@abv.bg wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments. Konqueror has never been tested as it has
>> very small market share, less than 0.1%. Browsers that have been
>> tested are:
>> - Internet Explorer 6, 7
>> - Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
>> - Mozilla 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
>> - Opera 7.50, 8.0, 8.50, 9.0, 9.20
>> - Safari 3.0.4
>> - Avant Browser 10.2, 11.5
>> - Maxthon 1.5, 1.6, 2.0
>> - SeaMonkey 1.1.7
>>
>
> As stated before, first make sure your code is valid, then take into
> account changes needed by the various web browsers.
>
>> Although there are zillions of frameworks out there, there are very
>> few worth mentioning. I hope to qualify in Top 10, although may be too
>> late. ASP.NET-like frameworks are also very few, and there are pros
>> and cons to offer such a thing to the LAMP community. Such frameworks
>> really simplify the development and the maintenance, but the community
>> may dislike everything that comes from MS even as ideas.
>> Although QPHP.NET has 3 years of internal experience and is very well
>> tested, I published it as version 0.9 and hope by the time reaching
>> 1.0 to become pretty good framework not only for our commercial
>> projects, but for the PHP community as well. Basically with this post
>> I am trying to figure out what features are considered valuable and to
>> put it in the next versions.
>> Full XHTML support will be added in the next version, Yahoo and Google
>> sites are still not XHTML based and I guess there are reasons for
>> that, so this feature won't bring too much value to the framework at
>> this time.
>
> Most "large" websites - such as Google and Yahoo - don't really care
> about web standards. Their purpose is to provide a nice looking and
> easily maintainable website. Writing valid XHTML and CSS that works on
> every browser is time consuming and that is one thing most companies
> don't have or don't want to spend on a website. As long as it works,
> it's OK.
> One of my previous jobs was with a web development company and they had
> their own internal developed framework created before XHTML was
> available. Upgrading took too much time and internal work does not pay
> the bills. Today they are still not producing XHTML valid websites.
>
> If you want to provide a good framework you must realize that most users
> will be amateur or professional web designers and developers who do want
> XHTML and CSS valid websites because it makes their portfolio look so
> much nicer. The are working independently and don't have to worry to
> much about the time they have to complete a project.
> From my experience and corresponding with other web developers I
> noticed most of them use either custom build frameworks or things like
> Drupal or Textpattern because they are great frameworks that provide
> quality code.
While the discussion moves that much towards HTML it's getting offtopic:
XHTML is NOT the standard anyone must follow. HTML4.01 Strict is very OK
too, and a lot easier then _real_ XHTML (not XHTML served as tag soup).
XHTML has its specific uses and advantages, of which almost none you can
really use in production due to lack of UA support. The XHTML hype is long
over, people have calmed down, and most serious developers have gone back
to HTML4.01 Strict.
However, a flexible framework should still support XHTML (and output valid
code) if the user for some reason desires that.
--
Rik Wasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|