Coded Into a Corner - puhlease...

[Jim Roth]

Here's the developer's perspective: I have applications that I want to develop
(duh). Let's focus on full-blown browser applications - the kind you might
use in a major corporation. Because Netscape's DHTML DOM differs from Microsoft's
DOM, the burden is on me to choose the best set of tools to deliver my web
application. I have to compromise for cross-platform compatibility.

End users want functionality, and they want form. The IE DHTML DOM gives
me the ability to more closely emulate the user interfaces that my customers
have grown accustomed to in the VB/VC/whatever GUI world. The Netscape DOM
conforms tightly to standards - hurrah for their noble effort. However,
it does not provide the added functionality of the IE DOM.

Net result? The user loses. Users get stuck with a comparitively cheesy-looking
app with HTML 3.2-bound functionality. JavaScript can make sure they fill
in the right fields. Big whoop.

It's hard enough to get users to understand the potential for web applications.
Witholding the tools to develop "comfortable" applications is doing the
user community a disservice.

Microsoft is making life easier for the web application developer by providing
a powerful scripting model that allows dynamic changes to take place at the
client level. I don't have that luxury in Netscape - at least not at the
same level. I say that Microsoft has set the bar higher, and everyone else
needs to jump a little harder.

It's what makes competition worthwhile.

[Damon Zirkler]

I agree completely with Jim!

This article doesnt mention at all the *INTRANET* corporate environment,
where one browser is standard company-wide. What portion of Web applications
are written specifically for this environment!? I'd gather its a rather
large portion! Most developers i know, when given the option to do a heterogeneous
or a homogeneous will choose the homogeneous anyday, why? Because its simpler.
But, what browser do they choose? IE. Why? a) becuase as Jim says, it
helps the developers to present a UI that is more comfortable to the users.
b) The entire browser and all components and the scripting language, etc
are documented *FULLY* on microsofts website. This is Invaluable! And anyone
who had waded through Netscape's JavaScript docs and MSDN knows what I'm
talking about. So while Microsoft has said they wont fully support standards
for the Internet, this really doesnt bother me much because I dont really
write webapps for the Internet. I think Microsoft knows who its developers
are developing for, and they are trying to make the corporate intranet environment
developers happy will still trying to provide a rich browser for home users.


Damon

[Chat Clussman]

"Damon Zirkler" <damon@zirkler.com> wrote:
>So while Microsoft has said they wont fully support standards
>for the Internet, this really doesnt bother me much because I dont really
>write webapps for the Internet.

I'm sorry to say this, but if you don't write webapps for the Internet, who
cares what your opinion is concerning *Internet Standards*?

>I think Microsoft knows who its developers
>are developing for, and they are trying to make the corporate intranet environment
>developers happy will still trying to provide a rich browser for home users.

Do you honestly believe this? You honestly think Microsoft cares about anybody
other than Microsoft? They don't care about developers or home users. They
care about forcibly abusing a monoply situation by not adhering to standards.
Incidentally, the DOJ seems to agree. KUDOS to them.

[Glenn Davis]

Funny, everything you described can be done via standards based code. Write
it once, and it works everywhere. Or write it once and it only works on
IE under Windows. Which would you rather create?

And as for HTML3.2, it's MS that's saying the will be sticking with that,
not the rest of the world.

On a side note, if you code for the capabilities of the Mac version of IE,
you'll find that it breaks in the windows version of IE and vice versa.
Under what circumstances does that make sense?

Glenn

[Jim Roth]

Glenn,
You're being disingenuous and you know it.

I think a better argument on your behalf might be that I could get it done
(after a fashion) using standards, while my point is that I can get it done
(more elegantly) using a more dynamic DOM.

I'd be happy to tell you which application I'd rather create: the one that
makes my user community happy. I thought I made it abundantly clear that
I'm not interested in receiving stock quotes on my can opener (or a Mac)
- I'm interested in deploying corporate web applications that my users will
be comfortable using. That means I have to employ UI gizmos to give them
the warm and fuzzies. It also means that I must dictate a browser for them
to use. Fair swap, as far as they're concerned.

It's a trade-off between form/functionality and noble visions of a one-world
browser. Users give not one rip about standards - they want an application
that works for them. It's the difference between academia and the real world.

With respect to "write once, works everywhere:" Which version of UNIX do
you prefer?

Best Regards,
jr

"Glenn Davis" <gdavis@devx.com> wrote:
>
>Funny, everything you described can be done via standards based code. Write
>it once, and it works everywhere. Or write it once and it only works on
>IE under Windows. Which would you rather create?
>
>And as for HTML3.2, it's MS that's saying the will be sticking with that,
>not the rest of the world.
>
>On a side note, if you code for the capabilities of the Mac version of IE,
>you'll find that it breaks in the windows version of IE and vice versa.

>Under what circumstances does that make sense?
>
>Glenn