Coffeehouse Thread

74 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Chat with the IE team TOMORROW (Thursday 8th)

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Keskos

    "uhh Keskos.... spell check is great..... too bad they don't have "logic check""

    I remember your logic. It was simple "Bash Microsoft". Your sarcastic comments are just a good proof that, I am telling the truth.

    re:Shining

    " If lacking experience means failing to see the future, you're right."

    No lacking experience means that, you assume that everything is so simple that if you tell people to be standard complaint it means something. You don't think about the number of users you have to support, people that will have problems using your software, the bugs, the order of bugs, the updates and so on. You simplfy everything into one thing, stick with standards, even though the evidence shows that browsers never going to be able to fully support standards.

    " What would you say if God decided to make the physics of every area 5 ft away from another area different? A standard way of things is important?"

    I simply love your logic. Who argued that standards are bad? I said, standards is not the only thing and if the standards you are talking about is extremely hard to implement onsistently across the browsers, then you are never going to achieve what standards is really about. You will always have problems as we have now.  Your question btw doesn't make sense at all. Standards is not God. I can criticize W3C at any moment. You are trying to take that freedom away from us.

    " The IE developers' atitude towards compatibility with broken standards support in standards mode being their #1 concern when fixing things will not help the matter."

    What do you want exactly? I have mentioned what I want from IE team once, twice. You are repeating the same story over and over again here, asked the same question several times on the chat yesterday. Sure, I understand some real effort to push your wish on IE, which I also like to see to happen, but there should be a limit, and you can't accuse others of being in sin because they say that they don't have to listen to W3C necessarily. This is not a religion. We can criticize whoever we like, just like you come here and beat the IE team over their support for CSS.

    " If all sites were written to a specification and browsers had proper support for it, we wouldn't have any of these problems."

    What we have seen so far is that, this is simply not humanely possible. There are minor but important differences between Opera and Mozilla who both claim to support standards. Let's forget about IE for a while, there are tens of browsers out there and only one of them is good enough for specs and that is Mozilla.

    " If the website is coded according to the specification and the browser was coded according to the specification, it would render properly. If the browser was not coded exactly according to the specification, the site would not view correctly but would view correctly when the browser is fixed. This is why I don't see how coding your site according to a specification will cause it to become broken in the future. However, coding your site according to what a browser renders (like you have done) and not to the spec is likely to cause it to become broken in the future."

    I understand what you are talking about there, but you don't see what I am talking about. Here is how you implement something. You have a specific goal in your mind, you want the page to look and behave in a certain way. Ok, what do you do? Go and read the specs and implement what you want using them. Cool, I do that. Open up mozilla, fix your code etc... until mozilla shows it properly. Oh wait, I see a bug here (maybe I don't see it at all). It looks like what I want to do has some problems with Mozilla. So what do I do? Well, then workaround the problem. Use a different layout, different tags, use spacing, use hacks, use javascript, do something but fix the damn problem. Ok, I fixed it. Now what? Oh, see, Mozilla upgraded its browser. Cool, download it, view my page on it. Oh my god, my page is all messed up, why? Hmm, looks like mozilla fixed its previous bug which makes my site messed up. You always use standards to implement what you want to do, but bugs push you to use work arounds and a work around is not a work around for the standard, it is a work around for the standard that is implemented by that particular browser, which is the browser itself. Once you understand this fact, I think you will see that it is not as easy as you seem to think.

    " Actually, they do considering the W3C consists of companies and organizations such as Microsoft, Opera and Mozilla.

    Since you seem to care about whether or not your site works in tomorrow's browser, I'll tell you what to do to ensure that it works in tomorrow's browser. Go to the Firefox/Mozilla forums or talk to one of the Firefox/Mozilla developers and say: "I've been coding without standards for a really long time and I'm sick of my site's lack of forward compatibility. My site uses <insert technologies here>, would you mind linking me to the specifications revelent to me?" I'm sure that they would be overjoyed to help you out. And yes, you'll have to go through compatibility charts to see which browser supports what and it will take longer because browsers have broken standards support (which is why I'm here now) but in the end you'll be a much happier person."

    I have been coding with standards for a really long time and I am sick of people trying to teach what standards is. Instead of accusing people not to follow your God, why don't you point out the specific sin you think we are violating. Standards are W3C's specs, nothing else. Mozilla is the implementation of those specs with bugs of their own. Opera is another implementation of those specs with their own bugs etc... iCab is another browser which sucks, I don't even consider to support it. Because of these bugs there is no one standard as you want to believe. When someone tells you the truth, you go into denial, you blame those people who tell you the truth. There is no standard that specifies what the innerHeight of a window is. It is different from browser to browser, version to version. You tell me that, either don't use the innerHeight of the window or you wrongly think that it is specified in W3C. Again and again, you don't want to understand the basic fact that, there is no such thing as totally standard, the same exact implementation of the specs. You want something that is not possible, we can only approximate to that, and on top of that I am suggesting that we don't have to worship whatever W3C says. When I say there are unspecified things in W3C I am not making it up. I have talked to mozilla developers, various other people. It all comes down to W3C's not specifiying it, or that Mozilla's not supporting something useful available in IE because it is not in W3C. Mozilla do support things not in W3C though, it is simply an excuse in some cases. W3C's lack of being thorough for web app developers' needs make it useless in most of the cases.

    " I'll admit Open Source developers are mostly jerks (which is why I don't like them) but they are doing something Microsoft is failing to do. Puting standards in standards mode ahead of compatibility when you cannot have both due to a browser bug"

    First of all, not all open source developers are jerks. Miguel Icaza is a great guy, and I respect him a lot. Anyway, let's see what happens when mozilla developers do what you say. I write an app, ship it to the customers, customers update their Mozilla browser, and my app stops functioning and I die. The client has to rehire someone to fix the problem or stick with the older browser. Are you able to see the problem here?

    " Would you cut it out with the worshipping garabage? Every time I say something you say "are you worshipping <insert organization/company/person/group/whatever here>" or "are you smoking." I find it to be very immature but if you are trying to give me the impression that you have maturity issues you are doing a very good job of it."

    No it is not about immaturity. It is a fun way of showing where you are headed because you talk as if we really have to worship everything W3C says. I am definitely suprised that you give so much credit to Zeldman and not people who explain CSS, because CSS is the standard we are talking about. I mean what is Zeldman doing different than a CSS book author, other than mentioning the word standard over and over again. It is quite true that people abuse the word standard. They abuse it almost everywhere, use it in meaningless context. Standards you are talking about are simple, they are CSS, HTML, XHTML, DOM etc... as they are specified in the W3C's specifications. People like standards because standard has a positive image in our brains. We think that if you don't comply with the standards it is not good. But standards, speifications have never been the rule of law in IT. TCP/IP is a great example to that. As long as you don't accept the fact that it is not easy to compeletely comply with the specifications, you will keep saying the same things without much point. You fail to show us that even Opera doesn't supports the God as well as Mozilla does.

    Conclusion, we don't have to accept whatever W3C comes up with. People who tell you that you should support whatever W3C tells you to do are smoking pot. You have the freedom not to support it at all. Second, complete standard complaince is impossible to achieve in CSS/HTML. There are bugs for each browser and each one differs. We can approximate to the ideal case, but will never achieve it. These two assertions do not conflict with my earlier wishes that IE support some extra things in CSS, HTML etc... Finally, Zeldman's role in moving forward with CSS, HTML is not big at all. He is simply a good author and web designer who was able to take advantage of the situation by using the correct words (standards) over and over again. At the end all he does is the same as other authors people using the same exact technologies. Despite the fact that he abused the word standards, his original goal with his site was legitimate, but later on they turned standards into God and made the whole thing a stupid zealocy thing. Most of the people who scream standards everywhere are definitely not normal people.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    LarryOsterman wrote:

    Manip wrote:

    But FireFox fixes most of these issues and that doesn't break sites. I mean of course some don't work and others look slightly odd but 90% work perfectly.


    Manip, did you forget the <dripping with irony> tags in your post?



    There is nothing wrong with that post. It is just wrong... <dripping with irony>

    hahaha, good point. I could have worded that post a little better! Smiley

  • User profile image
    bsilby

    I've never been too worried about standards. I'm only interested in producing something that looks good to most people. Since most people use IE, I ensure that my product looks good with that browser. Then I work in some code just incase someone is viewing with Mozilla.

    This has never been a problem for me. Its no big deal.

    Personally I'm happy with the way IE works. My content has always run very well in IE (much faster than Moz).

    Whatever moves IE team make towards supporting more "standards" I think they need to maintain backward compatibility. It is not acceptable to make changes that will break sites simply because of some arbitary standards. The general public do not know about the standards debate. They just want to open IE and view all the sites that they normally visit.

    Brent.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    bsilby wrote:

    I've never been too worried about standards. I'm only interested in producing something that looks good to most people. Since most people use IE, I ensure that my product looks good with that browser. Then I work in some code just incase someone is viewing with Mozilla.

    This has never been a problem for me. Its no big deal.

    Personally I'm happy with the way IE works. My content has always run very well in IE (much faster than Moz).

    Whatever moves IE team make towards supporting more "standards" I think they need to maintain backward compatibility. It is not acceptable to make changes that will break sites simply because of some arbitary standards. The general public do not know about the standards debate. They just want to open IE and view all the sites that they normally visit.

    Brent.



    Let me guess, you use tables for positioning. IE renders tables faster than Mozilla.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Keskos wrote:
    "uhh Keskos.... spell check is great..... too bad they don't have "logic check""

    I remember your logic. It was simple "Bash Microsoft". Your sarcastic comments are just a good proof that, I am telling the truth.


    He is right. You only see what is right in front of your eyes in regard to things.

    Keskos wrote:
    re:Shining

    " If lacking experience means failing to see the future, you're right."

    No lacking experience means that, you assume that everything is so simple that if you tell people to be standard complaint it means something. You don't think about the number of users you have to support, people that will have problems using your software, the bugs, the order of bugs, the updates and so on. You simplfy everything into one thing, stick with standards, even though the evidence shows that browsers never going to be able to fully support standards.


    You fail to see that your stance gets in the way of what is important.

    And by the way, if you and everyone like you supported standards, a browser will one day fully support them. It is possible and can be done.

    Keskos wrote:
    " What would you say if God decided to make the physics of every area 5 ft away from another area different? A standard way of things is important?"

    I simply love your logic. Who argued that standards are bad? I said, standards is not the only thing and if the standards you are talking about is extremely hard to implement onsistently across the browsers, then you are never going to achieve what standards is really about. You will always have problems as we have now.  Your question btw doesn't make sense at all. Standards is not God. I can criticize W3C at any moment. You are trying to take that freedom away from us.


    If there were no standards there would be no internet. Heck, we'd still be in in the 18th century. Have you ever heard of Standardized parts? Have you ever heard of HTTP? HTTP is a standard and if it didn't exist, the internet as we know it would cease to exist. HTML wouldn't exist either if there wasn't a standard, the issue is that it is not properly implemented. And whether or not you have the capability to write good code, do not get in the way of it.

    Keskos wrote:
    " The IE developers' atitude towards compatibility with broken standards support in standards mode being their #1 concern when fixing things will not help the matter."

    What do you want exactly? I have mentioned what I want from IE team once, twice. You are repeating the same story over and over again here, asked the same question several times on the chat yesterday. Sure, I understand some real effort to push your wish on IE, which I also like to see to happen, but there should be a limit, and you can't accuse others of being in sin because they say that they don't have to listen to W3C necessarily. This is not a religion. We can criticize whoever we like, just like you come here and beat the IE team over their support for CSS.


    Keskos wrote:
    You are repeating the same story over and over again here


    Probably because you just don't get it.

    By the way, when the police interrogate someone, they look for inconsistancies in their story as that is how they catch them if they are lying, if what they say is wrong. You have said it yourself that there are no inconsistancies in my story yet you think that indicates that I am wrong. That is ironic don't you think?

    Keskos wrote:
    " If all sites were written to a specification and browsers had proper support for it, we wouldn't have any of these problems."

    What we have seen so far is that, this is simply not humanely possible. There are minor but important differences between Opera and Mozilla who both claim to support standards. Let's forget about IE for a while, there are tens of browsers out there and only one of them is good enough for specs and that is Mozilla.


    Forgetting about IE, if the web was only Opera and Mozilla, I wouldn't be here complaining because the entire web would be coded according to the spec.

    If IE was written according to the spec we wouldn't be complaining now because we'd be enjoying the benefits of writing well coded documents with standards.

    Keskos wrote:
    " If the website is coded according to the specification and the browser was coded according to the specification, it would render properly. If the browser was not coded exactly according to the specification, the site would not view correctly but would view correctly when the browser is fixed. This is why I don't see how coding your site according to a specification will cause it to become broken in the future. However, coding your site according to what a browser renders (like you have done) and not to the spec is likely to cause it to become broken in the future."

    I understand what you are talking about there, but you don't see what I am talking about. Here is how you implement something. You have a specific goal in your mind, you want the page to look and behave in a certain way. Ok, what do you do? Go and read the specs and implement what you want using them. Cool, I do that. Open up mozilla, fix your code etc... until mozilla shows it properly. Oh wait, I see a bug here (maybe I don't see it at all). It looks like what I want to do has some problems with Mozilla. So what do I do? Well, then workaround the problem. Use a different layout, different tags, use spacing, use hacks, use javascript, do something but fix the damn problem. Ok, I fixed it. Now what? Oh, see, Mozilla upgraded its browser. Cool, download it, view my page on it. Oh my god, my page is all messed up, why? Hmm, looks like mozilla fixed its previous bug which makes my site messed up. You always use standards to implement what you want to do, but bugs push you to use work arounds and a work around is not a work around for the standard, it is a work around for the standard that is implemented by that particular browser, which is the browser itself. Once you understand this fact, I think you will see that it is not as easy as you seem to think.


    You fail to realize that Mozilla's bugs are not the standard. The specification is the standard and if your site was 100% compliant with it, you wouldn't have had that problem. You might have had to work around the bug you mentioned but it wouldn't have been broken when the bug was fixed.

    Keskos wrote:
    " Actually, they do considering the W3C consists of companies and organizations such as Microsoft, Opera and Mozilla.

    Since you seem to care about whether or not your site works in tomorrow's browser, I'll tell you what to do to ensure that it works in tomorrow's browser. Go to the Firefox/Mozilla forums or talk to one of the Firefox/Mozilla developers and say: "I've been coding without standards for a really long time and I'm sick of my site's lack of forward compatibility. My site uses <insert technologies here>, would you mind linking me to the specifications revelent to me?" I'm sure that they would be overjoyed to help you out. And yes, you'll have to go through compatibility charts to see which browser supports what and it will take longer because browsers have broken standards support (which is why I'm here now) but in the end you'll be a much happier person."

    I have been coding with standards for a really long time and I am sick of people trying to teach what standards is. Instead of accusing people not to follow your God, why don't you point out the specific sin you think we are violating. Standards are W3C's specs, nothing else. Mozilla is the implementation of those specs with bugs of their own. Opera is another implementation of those specs with their own bugs etc... iCab is another browser which sucks, I don't even consider to support it. Because of these bugs there is no one standard as you want to believe. When someone tells you the truth, you go into denial, you blame those people who tell you the truth. There is no standard that specifies what the innerHeight of a window is. It is different from browser to browser, version to version. You tell me that, either don't use the innerHeight of the window or you wrongly think that it is specified in W3C. Again and again, you don't want to understand the basic fact that, there is no such thing as totally standard, the same exact implementation of the specs. You want something that is not possible, we can only approximate to that, and on top of that I am suggesting that we don't have to worship whatever W3C says. When I say there are unspecified things in W3C I am not making it up. I have talked to mozilla developers, various other people. It all comes down to W3C's not specifiying it, or that Mozilla's not supporting something useful available in IE because it is not in W3C. Mozilla do support things not in W3C though, it is simply an excuse in some cases. W3C's lack of being thorough for web app developers' needs make it useless in most of the cases.


    If you have been coding with standards so long, you would not have these problems. You said it yourself that your site had used a non-standard glitch in a browser to work... That is not coding with standards.

    Keskos wrote:
    " I'll admit Open Source developers are mostly jerks (which is why I don't like them) but they are doing something Microsoft is failing to do. Puting standards in standards mode ahead of compatibility when you cannot have both due to a browser bug"

    First of all, not all open source developers are jerks. Miguel Icaza is a great guy, and I respect him a lot. Anyway, let's see what happens when mozilla developers do what you say. I write an app, ship it to the customers, customers update their Mozilla browser, and my app stops functioning and I die. The client has to rehire someone to fix the problem or stick with the older browser. Are you able to see the problem here?


    I didn't say that all open source developers are jerks but I did say that in my experience, most are. Virtually every open source developer I've met was a jerk. For example, the phpBB guys said: "use search," "we don't have to help you," "we don't care how many people want quick reply, we're not implementing it." Then there were the Microsoft ASP.NET Forums guys: "we're not fixing the standards related bugs," "we don't care about standards," "we care about people that are too cheap to buy a new computer with a 33MHz processor running Netscape 2.0 even through our tables are going to make rendering painfully slow." If that isn't something a jerk would say, I don't know what is.

    Keskos wrote:
    " Would you cut it out with the worshipping garabage? Every time I say something you say "are you worshipping <insert organization/company/person/group/whatever here>" or "are you smoking." I find it to be very immature but if you are trying to give me the impression that you have maturity issues you are doing a very good job of it."

    No it is not about immaturity. It is a fun way of showing where you are headed because you talk as if we really have to worship everything W3C says. I am definitely suprised that you give so much credit to Zeldman and not people who explain CSS, because CSS is the standard we are talking about. I mean what is Zeldman doing different than a CSS book author, other than mentioning the word standard over and over again. It is quite true that people abuse the word standard. They abuse it almost everywhere, use it in meaningless context. Standards you are talking about are simple, they are CSS, HTML, XHTML, DOM etc... as they are specified in the W3C's specifications. People like standards because standard has a positive image in our brains. We think that if you don't comply with the standards it is not good. But standards, speifications have never been the rule of law in IT. TCP/IP is a great example to that. As long as you don't accept the fact that it is not easy to compeletely comply with the specifications, you will keep saying the same things without much point. You fail to show us that even Opera doesn't supports the God as well as Mozilla does.


    So you have to act like a child to have fun?

    Keskos wrote:
    Conclusion, we don't have to accept whatever W3C comes up with. People who tell you that you should support whatever W3C tells you to do are smoking pot. You have the freedom not to support it at all. Second, complete standard complaince is impossible to achieve in CSS/HTML. There are bugs for each browser and each one differs. We can approximate to the ideal case, but will never achieve it. These two assertions do not conflict with my earlier wishes that IE support some extra things in CSS, HTML etc... Finally, Zeldman's role in moving forward with CSS, HTML is not big at all. He is simply a good author and web designer who was able to take advantage of the situation by using the correct words (standards) over and over again. At the end all he does is the same as other authors people using the same exact technologies. Despite the fact that he abused the word standards, his original goal with his site was legitimate, but later on they turned standards into God and made the whole thing a stupid zealocy thing. Most of the people who scream standards everywhere are definitely not normal people.


    I never said you have to accept standards as you can always code for quirks mode where every new browser update breaks your code. I did say that standards mode should be standards mode, not quirks mode 2.0.

    By the way, I realized two posts ago that you were a waste of time but I didn't want to give up on you as I hoped that I could help you realize that you are wrong. However, as past experience has shown me, I should ignore all feelings of hope when talking to people. I apolgize for thinking that you would ever see why you are wrong. To make it up to you, I will ignore your future posts regarding this topic.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    " And by the way, if you and everyone like you supported standards, a browser will one day fully support them. It is possible and can be done."

    Where did you see me not supporting standard. Here you are only talking, how do you know who knows CSS better? How do you know who knows standards better? All you are saying here is you support standards. You don't support standards by saying it, you do something, implement something using them. I do and so explain to us how come you judge people based on the fact that they don't worship W3C?

    Your religious arguments, worshipping W3C is what gets into way here. You don't even know who supports standards or not, all you are saying here is that you worship W3C and if we don't then we are going to die.

    " If there were no standards there would be no internet."

    You are being funny again here. All you are doing is really trying to scare people. If there was no God we would all die etc... TCP/IP is not an ISO standard, OSI was the standard, but people implemented internet on a non-standard thing. You have no clue in this area. ISO is just like W3C, it is a standard organization.

    "Heck, we'd still be in in the 18th century."

    No, if there were no standards we would all die. As you see on the web, nothing works on browsers right? People can't use other browsers, everything is in havoc? I see people screaming outside right now telling how terrible the web is and that we are all going to die soon.

    " By the way, when the police interrogate someone, they look for inconsistancies in their story as that is how they catch them if they are lying, if what they say is wrong. You have said it yourself that there are no inconsistancies in my story yet you think that indicates that I am wrong. That is ironic don't you think?"

    Extremely religious zealot people are quite consistent in what they want, but they are definitely out of line. You definitely want something strongly, but while you do that you come up with all sorts of wrong assumptions and facts. Currently thanks to the standards we already have a great web. Only you claim that we are all going to die if Microsoft doesn't put better CSS support. Only you claim that we will have a very bad web if Microsoft doesn't support max-width. The fact is that, we already have a great web and what you are saying is nonesense. I also want max-width, but I am not saying we are going to die if we don't have it. I am not saying that we are going to go to hell if we fail to follow W3C. I don't think W3C matters here much, because clearly even though I support everything there so far, things that work in Mozilla don't work in Opera. You are lying even about this basic fact.

    " Forgetting about IE, if the web was only Opera and Mozilla, I wouldn't be here complaning because the entire web would be coded according to the spec."

    My code that works in Mozilla doesn't work in Opera, even it has nothing to do with bugs in Mozilla or workarounds in Mozilla. Opera simply sucks. It breaks in a little more complex layout. IE works perfect. Opera is not compatible with Mozilla. Anybody who claim they are the same are liars.

    " If IE was written according to the spec we wouldn't be complaining now because we'd be enjoying the benefits of writing well coded documents with standards"

    Again and again, the fact that you deny problems in Opera only prove that you are bashing IE only, and that's not a good thing for true standards supporters. Clearly you haven't discovered the problems in Opera. Clearly your problem is not about standards then.

    "You fail to realize that Mozilla's bugs are not the standard. The specification is the standard and if your site was 100% compliant with it, you wouldn't have had that problem. You might have had to work around the bug you mentioned but it wouldn't have been broken when the bug was fixed"

    You are absolutely talking nonesense here. So mozilla's bugs are not the standard, what can I do? Give me the browser without the bugs then, or stop complaining. You don't make sense one bit. It is not clear what you are trying to say? Should we dump Mozilla because it has non-standard things in it and it has tons of non-standard stuff in it btw. Should we dump Mozilla because it has bugs?

    " You fail to realize that Mozilla's bugs are not the standard. The specification is the standard and if your site was 100% compliant with it, you wouldn't have had that problem. You might have had to work around the bug you mentioned but it wouldn't have been broken when the bug was fixed"

    First of all you are lying here again. I code in standards, we don't know even how well do you know CSS, DOM, HTML and XHTML. All we hear from you is how much you love your God (standards). If you really love your God that much, just go ahead and develop a 100% complaint browser, or just shut up. You don't deny browsers' bugs, but then you don't want people to work around the bugs, you don't say anything, the only thing I concluded from what you say, which is the only conclusion even though there is no one bit of logic there, just don't design sites, or design sites whih don't work properly because of bugs. I also realize that you don't say any negative thing about Mozilla and Opera, even though clearly these browsers show some pages differently, or have different level of standards support and particularly Mozilla have tons of non-standard features, most of them without -moz- prefix. As I said again, all you prove to us, how unreasonable you are, how little you make sense. You simply repeat how much you love standards, that's pretty much it.

    " By the way, I realized two posts ago that you were a waste of time but I didn't want to give up on you as I hoped that I could help you realize that you are wrong. However, as past experience has shown me, I should ignore all feelings of hope when talking to people. I apolgize for thinking that you would ever see why you are wrong. To make it up to you, I will ignore your future posts regarding this topic."

    What I am wrong about? The fact that I want IE team to have better support for CSS etc...? The fact that I support Mozilla fully which uses the standards? The fact that I know W3C specifications inside out?  You only think I am wrong because I don't care about your God (standards) and that I am not going to worship them. You do what every zealot do, and give up on a nonesense argument, that I have to believe in what you believe as vigourously as you do. It doesnt make a difference if I use and know these standards more than you do.

    " So you have to act like a child to have fun?"

    What can you say to someone who is extremely religious and a zealot? Besides, it is extremely appropriate to tell that, because that's what you are doing. You preach your God (standards), then you tell us that we are going to die if we don't preach your God (standards), you don't accept technical problems as an excuse not to be able to fully preach your God, because you say your God says we have to preach it 20 hours a day, and this is not possible, so we say technically it is not possible, but then you say we are all going to die if we don't do it etc... The irony is that you don't even talk about CSS, HTML, XHTML during these conversations. You continously use the word God (standards). It absolutely explains how you use the term and how you behave here. There are hundrends of thousands of people out there using CSS, XHTML, HTML without mentioning the word "standards". W3C has to work people, not the other way around. We can fully critize W3C, as we criticize Microsoft here. Nobody is above people, even standards.

    Probably you are doing these with good intentions, but not all zealots are evil anyway. You seem to be brainwashed seriously believing that we are going to die if we don't have 100% support for the specs. It is one thing to say, we should try to support the specs as much as possible, make sure that W3C produces good specs, and so on, it is another thing to say we should have 100% complaince with W3C specs even though there are problems with it, anything else should die, I don't care about bugs, you can't work around them, if we don't follow W3C we would die, we will not exist in this world , oh no you are evil if you don't believe what I say, you are going to hell because you didn't preach to W3C and so on. Really it is all about this simple difference, it has nothing to do for being wrong on a particular issue.

    P.S. : God is just given as an example for the analogy, so no offense to those who believe in. I do believe in God, for the record.  Smiley

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Keskos, I refuse to lower myself to your level. I know that you enjoy wasting other people's time as you do such a good job of doing so that it must be your hobby but don't waste my time. Go ask the guys at the Firefox forums what browser bugs you're coding for and how not to code for them. I'm sure that they can tell you. Will they tell you is a different story.

  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Guys,
    Please try to be respectful of each other. There are extremely good points being put forward from both sides of this discussion. It's great to see people being so passionate but please show respect even if you disagree with the others point of view.
    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    manickernel

    DMassy wrote:
    Guys,
    Please try to be respectful of each other. There are extremely good points being put forward from both sides of this discussion. It's great to see people being so passionate but please show respect even if you disagree with the others point of view.
    Thanks
    -Dave


    DMassyy is right. Keskos, I apologize for yanking your chain. To be honest I am neutral in this whole discussion, and have learned a lot from reading both sides of it. I am also blown away with just how passionate webdevs are with this.

    Life is like a box of chocolates...

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Dave Massy, the web is at a stand still where if we want things to work, things can't be improved. Things work right now but what about next year? The year after? A decade from now? I don't think that they will continue to work and do think that if nothing is done problems will become far more complicated. If we fix these problems now, the right way, on both sides (browser and website), theoritically things will work forever (thanks to doctypes defining which specification the site is coded for) while allowing the web to move forward.

    Proper standards support on both sides (browser and website) will make programming easier, maintaince easier, development faster, load times lower and updating easier and will keep it that way forever (or as long as the web exists and consists of browsers and websites); while the browsers and sites can change, the specification each are coded for stays constant. With the current methods, either a browser or a site will change and break something. This is why standards (standards do not mean that quirks mode goes; standards mean that standards mode is standards compliant) are so important and must be implemented as soon as possible.

    Keskos, I will respect you, if you will respect me.

  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Shining,
    I don't necessarily disagree with you although I don't quite follow your logic that standards ensure things will work forever. Standards may certainly help here but I believe it is a mistake to believe they will absolutely ensure that things will work forever. Standards are sometimes flawed as is the case of CSS2 and is the reason behind the creation of CSS2.1. The analogy isn't quite accurate but the 8 track tape was a standard of sorts, I'm not sure you'll find it easy to play that format today and certainly not in 100 years time.

    Sometimes we have to accept that we are not going to change the opinion of others. However that does not mean the debate is not worth having and that it isn't worth putting forward a point of view and considering the opinions of others. I think we can do that in a respectful fashion.

    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    DMassy wrote:

    Shining,
    I don't necessarily disagree with you although I don't quite follow your logic that standards ensure things will work forever. Standards may certainly help here but I believe it is a mistake to believe they will absolutely ensure that things will work forever. Standards are sometimes flawed as is the case of CSS2 and is the reason behind the creation of CSS2.1. The analogy isn't quite accurate but the 8 track tape was a standard of sorts, I'm not sure you'll find it easy to play that format today and certainly not in 100 years time.

    Sometimes we have to accept that we are not going to change the opinion of others. However that does not mean the debate is not worth having and that it isn't worth putting forward a point of view and considering the opinions of others. I think we can do that in a respectful fashion.

    Thanks
    -Dave



    Dave, adopting proper standards compliance (in standards mode of course) does not necessarily mean that code will work forever (as things die). However code that is compliant with a specification will last as long as (there are other factors but the following are within reason) websites exist and the majority of browsers that are developed support that specification. I said forever because I wanted to stress that standards compliancy would help to ensure that code lasts a very long time; I did not go each and every specific clause because I felt doing so would not help to fix things.

  • User profile image
    bsilby

    Shining Arcanine wrote:


    Let me guess, you use tables for positioning. IE renders tables faster than Mozilla.


    That's not what I'm talking about. I'm actually talking about the dhtml animation in my games. I use image clipping to switch to different parts of a gif, and I reposition many elements around the screen quite rapidly to produce arcade style games.

    Internet explorer handles everything I do very quickly. Its fantastic for dhtml animation. My games will work in Mozilla, but as soon as a game starts resizing images or moving them over a complex background things slow to a crawl. Internet Explorer doesn't have this problem. Speed is always consistent.

    There is something wrong with the rendering in Mozilla. Its inefficient. On Bugzilla, there are heaps of posts about this problem, however it is not being addressed. Its scheduled for "future".

    Its important to me to ensure that my games run well on all browsers. However at this stage I have to recommend to my audience that they use Internet Explorer 5.5(up).

    So my only request is that the IE team don't mess with the rendering engine. It works very well as it is.

    Cheers,
    Brent.
    BTW, my games are at www.def-logic.com. I think they are a good illustration of the speed differences between IE and Moz.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    If we believe in God, we are going to live happily in the other world forever sounds similar here.

    But of course I don't think there is any logic in this standards case. It is all about propaganda. If you implement a browser with a well speicified specification, it doesn't matter whether it is your own or W3C's, if you support that specification in your browser your pages will live forever. It doesn't have to be a standard for it to live. Browsers has to stick with whatever they have supported previously. I think it is simply an attempt to come up with some weird logic to force people to worship W3C. Browsers should take into human error also.

    It would be too bad if zealots command our technological life. Probably the company who follow the zealots will pay it dearly at one point, because people don't like when things stop working for this or that reason.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    bsilby wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Let me guess, you use tables for positioning. IE renders tables faster than Mozilla.


    That's not what I'm talking about. I'm actually talking about the dhtml animation in my games. I use image clipping to switch to different parts of a gif, and I reposition many elements around the screen quite rapidly to produce arcade style games.

    Internet explorer handles everything I do very quickly. Its fantastic for dhtml animation. My games will work in Mozilla, but as soon as a game starts resizing images or moving them over a complex background things slow to a crawl. Internet Explorer doesn't have this problem. Speed is always consistent.

    There is something wrong with the rendering in Mozilla. Its inefficient. On Bugzilla, there are heaps of posts about this problem, however it is not being addressed. Its scheduled for "future".

    Its important to me to ensure that my games run well on all browsers. However at this stage I have to recommend to my audience that they use Internet Explorer 5.5(up).

    So my only request is that the IE team don't mess with the rendering engine. It works very well as it is.

    Cheers,
    Brent.
    BTW, my games are at www.def-logic.com. I think they are a good illustration of the speed differences between IE and Moz.


    Considering that you are using HTML 2.0 with javascript, I don't think that this is going to affect you either negitively or positively...

    Keskos wrote:
    If we believe in God, we are going to live happily in the other world forever sounds similar here.

    But of course I don't think there is any logic in this standards case. It is all about propaganda. If you implement a browser with a well speicified specification, it doesn't matter whether it is your own or W3C's, if you support that specification in your browser your pages will live forever. It doesn't have to be a standard for it to live. Browsers has to stick with whatever they have supported previously. I think it is simply an attempt to come up with some weird logic to force people to worship W3C. Browsers should take into human error also.

    It would be too bad if zealots command our technological life. Probably the company who follow the zealots will pay it dearly at one point, because people don't like when things stop working for this or that reason.


    Dave Massy asks you to stop yet you continue to cause a disturbance in this thread...

  • User profile image
    jamie

    re:  "If there is no standard way of doing things, there will be no way to address your concerns while ensuring a bright future. "


    Egad man... everything should be done differently - not the same

    this is why standards cant work

    you gotta do it different and BETTER than the other guy


    plus the whole name "standards" just sounds so... standard

    It should be called "Excellence" or something - as in - does your product or website adhere to the Excellence Reccomendations..

    who wants to be standard
    standards are 1%
    ( ok ok 2% - mozilla just gained a percent Wink


  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Dave Massy asks you to stop yet you continue to cause a disturbance in this thread...


    Shining,
    I asked you all to show some respect, I did not ask anyone to stop the conversation. As I said before there are lots of valid viewpoints being expressed here and it's great to see the debate. You are all welcome to continue expressing your viewpoints but I think it would be a shame if this forum deteriorated to the level of some others. It may be worth avoiding the topics of religion and politics but if there's something people have to say that is relevant to this area then let's hear it.
    Keskos is actually bringing up some valuable points that reflect some of the experience I have had when dealing with standards. While I don't agree with everything being said here Keskos is correct to point out that there are some issues with standards. It's very easy to take an idealistic approach when it comes to standards. It's worth remembering that we do not live in an ideal world, but that should not stop us from reaching for those ideals! The fact that CSS2 is flawed and being replaced with CSS2.1 demonstrates that errors are made and we do not live in an ideal world. I believe it is to the W3C's credit that CSS2.1 is moving forward as an implementable set of functionality.
    At Microsoft we value the work of standards bodies and we understand the value of a common framework for developers. We have already said that we understand the issues that developers are facing and that Internet Explorer has fallen behind in support of some recommendations. At this time we can't say definitively when and how we might address this as I do not want to make any statement until we are sure we can deliver.
    It does seem that this debate is a little tired at the moment but that does not mean that each viewpoint is not valuable. Sometimes it is possible to agree to disagree so we can move on to a different topic Smiley

    Thanks
    -Dave

     

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Shining,
    sorry if my comments seemed to be disrespectful to you. However I stand up with what I said. I think we should talk more about technical issues rather than who is more moral or who is more cheering for the W3C etc...  Let's be to the point, let's discuss the real issues, rather than saying things like "we will not be here if there is no standards". I don't think anybody is disputing the importance of standards, but really it is lame to misuse the word standards. I appreciate that you are really concerned about standards, and it is a very good thing to have people like you (especially the fact that you are doing this not to bash Microsoft), but I think we shouldn't go over the board. Yeah, let's put pressure on IE team to address some of the important concerns we have, but let's be reasonable in our demands so we can spend more time on really important issues, rather than spending time who is the best cheerleader for "standards". Also let's stop saying we can't criticize W3C, yes we can. We can also raise issues with standards itself. We have that freedom. Maybe that way we can fix problems, maybe we can provide feedback back to W3C. It is important not to have an environment where everybody feel that they have to be zealot to say something. That kills the discussion environment and it is extremely important to make that channel open.

    Cheers

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.