Posted by Neredbojias on 10/09/07 11:42

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:18:00 GMT
Ben C scribed:

>> Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
>> dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
>> concordance.
>
> No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
> a bit suspect.

Nonsense? Okay, we'll see.

> The reasons for the differences between browsers are not open standards,
> but the fact that the situation is still recovering from a nasty period
> of browser wars between makers of proprietary software.

I wasn't arguing cause but that the browsers overall ability to perform is
essentially decrepit.

> It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
> W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
> explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
> direction. They are doing a good job.

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.

> 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!

> But this improves with
> every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.

Yeah, and possibly by the year 2142 or so they may get it halfway right.

> I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
> although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
> about catching up.

Sandbagging equates to deliberacy but in MS's case I think the reason is
simply bucks. There's no real money in it. The ironic thing is that the
stuff they _do_ put an effort into usually fails even more dramatically.
Here is an excerpt from a discussion I ran across between some programmers
regarding certain Webapp facilities:

<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>

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]