Prev: ECMA-262-3 in detail. Chapter 4. Scope chain.
Next: FAQ Topic - What is the Document Object Model (DOM)? (2010-03-22)
From: David Mark on 23 Mar 2010 09:07
Jorge wrote:
> On Mar 23, 9:55 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> (...)
>> Just the simple act of setting the hash and reading it back is extremely
>> problematic. Some of the issues were described (and bizarre workarounds
>> proposed) in the cited StackOverflow exchange. All of those people
>> complaining that the end result didn't seem to work in IE6/7 were not
>> just whistling Dixie. I can confirm that there are major issues in
>> those browsers with relation to setting the hash with script. If you
>> set the hash and then can't read it back reliably (which I can
>> definitely confirm), it pretty much sinks the whole endeavor. I sure as
>> hell wouldn't inject an IFrame (as seen in ill-advised junk like YUI and
>> Dojo) or mess with Opera's navigation mode (also in YUI IIRC) to try to
>> make such an obvious non-starter start. ;)
>
> I think that none of the many long-standing bugs in IEs are merely
> accidents due to incompetence. Rather the opposite, I firmly believe
> that most of them are bricks on the road clever and intentionally left
> there -service pack after service pack- by M$ in order to handicap the
> web and its potential, which M$ has always seen as a threat for their
> OS business.

No kidding.

>
> There's no need to be a genius in order to see that if the web ever
> succeeded as an application delivery channel it would have been the
> end for the proprietary Windows�� API lock-in.

And I don't think that it takes a genius to see that the Web as it sits
today (e.g. mashed up kiddie scripts running on top of invalid
documents) will ever be a serious application delivery channel.
Seriously. How crazy would you have to be to think mankind won't come
up with something better than follies jQueryUI, Dojo, etc. It is to
laugh. :)

> That's why it's been
> into M$ plans for the last so many years to lock and f*ck the browsers
> API as much as possible in as obscure -and not too evident- as
> possible ways.

I have little doubt there is truth to that.

>
> You, Cornford, and so many others not only in this group but in the
> whole web panorama are good living examples of M$'s intended effect,
> whenever you advocate ditching a clever idea due to a certain IE
> (in)compatibility.

I don't think you understand the reality that IE is the stock browser on
all Windows machines, many of which are used by people who don't know or
care what a browser is. Furthermore, even if they do know and are aware
of alternatives, they may not be able to change it if they wanted to.
Professionals recognize reality for what it is and deal with it.
Amateurs fantasize about other worlds (which in their minds often become
their concept of the "real world".)

>
> This is exactly the same reason why there's no <canvas> in IEs: they
> don't want the browsers API to provide such an essential
> functionality. Think about it: there's no way but the <canvas> to draw
> arbitrary pixels on-screen.

Who cares? That's not what Web browsers are for and it will never be
what Web browsers are for. The day is _not_ coming when you write the
next Photoshop to run in a Web browser. Just forget all such notions
and you'll be a less irritable individual. :)

>
> So in order to get out of this trap in which we've been for so long, I
> think that the way forward for the web should not care the slightest
> about working around any of the many of IE's misbehaviours. Instead,
> think about killing IE forever. It deserves it.

Neither you nor I has the power to kill a browser. And I don't care
what Crockford says about it. ;)
From: Richard Cornford on 23 Mar 2010 09:42
On Mar 23, 1:07 pm, David Mark wrote:
> Jorge wrote:
<snip>
>> ... . Instead, think about killing IE forever. It deserves it.
<snip>
> ... . And I don't
> care what Crockford says about it. ;)

<URL: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/f601da95d42db682
>

;-)

Richard.
From: Jorge on 23 Mar 2010 12:00
On Mar 23, 2:07 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think you understand the reality that IE is the stock browser on
> all Windows machines, many of which are used by people who don't know or
> care what a browser is.  Furthermore, even if they do know and are aware
> of alternatives, they may not be able to change it if they wanted to.
> Professionals recognize reality for what it is and deal with it.
> Amateurs fantasize about other worlds (which in their minds often become
> their concept of the "real world".)
>
>
> Who cares?  That's not what Web browsers are for and it will never be
> what Web browsers are for.  The day is _not_ coming when you write the
> next Photoshop to run in a Web browser.  Just forget all such notions
> and you'll be a less irritable individual.  :)
>
>
> Neither you nor I has the power to kill a browser.  And I don't care
> what Crockford says about it.  ;)

Wrt the libraries you're missing the big picture: they compete to
provide a better API, but instead you only see and look at the(ir) low-
level code.

Wrt IEs bugs, the very same day the big sites stop providing IE-
specific work arounds in their code, M$ will be forced to fix them or
the users will be forced to upgrade to a better browser (!IE).

Wrt web apps, take a look at the programs in your "start" menu, and
you'll discover that ~ 90% of them could -as of today- very well and
easily be replaced by web apps. Even Photoshop which is not exactly
the best candidate for a web app, has already a web app version, as
you know. Less capable, yes, but it's there, and it's a start.

Wrt web apps, note that nowadays most people are already spending most
of their time @ the browser. IOW, the browser is already the preferred
app platform.

The web has already moved forward quite a bit lately, and is moving
forward even further, and will get there with or without M$,
regardless of IE. Currently M$'s best hope is not to be left behind.

Yours, Cornford's and many other's attitude is outdated and against
the web's best interests. :-)
--
Jorge.
From: Jorge on 23 Mar 2010 12:04
On Mar 23, 2:42 pm, Richard Cornford <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:07 pm, David Mark wrote:
>
> > Jorge wrote:
> <snip>
> >> ... . Instead, think about killing IE forever. It deserves it.
> <snip>
> > ... .  And I don't
> > care what Crockford says about it.  ;)
>
> <URL:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/f601da95d42db682
>
>
>
> ;-)

It has rained a lot since 2004.
--
Jorge.
From: David Mark on 23 Mar 2010 12:22
Jorge wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:07 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think you understand the reality that IE is the stock browser on
>> all Windows machines, many of which are used by people who don't know or
>> care what a browser is. Furthermore, even if they do know and are aware
>> of alternatives, they may not be able to change it if they wanted to.
>> Professionals recognize reality for what it is and deal with it.
>> Amateurs fantasize about other worlds (which in their minds often become
>> their concept of the "real world".)
>>
>>
>> Who cares? That's not what Web browsers are for and it will never be
>> what Web browsers are for. The day is _not_ coming when you write the
>> next Photoshop to run in a Web browser. Just forget all such notions
>> and you'll be a less irritable individual. :)
>>
>>
>> Neither you nor I has the power to kill a browser. And I don't care
>> what Crockford says about it. ;)
>
> Wrt the libraries you're missing the big picture: they compete to
> provide a better API, but instead you only see and look at the(ir) low-
> level code.

No, Jorge, I am not missing any picture. I wrote one, remember?
Clearly I understand the concept of a higher-level abstraction. But
higher-level abstractions rest on lower-level abstractions, sort of like
the earth's crust rests on its core. And when the foundation is faulty,
these things ultimately shake and fall apart. Have you watched the news
(or browsed the Web) lately?

Clearly if the goal is to "save time" (and presumably money) by
abdicating responsibility for the code that sits just above the DOM
layer (e.g. the low-level library code), it doesn't make a whit of sense
for that code to be written according to the observations of the day.
It's like building a beach house at low tide, watching it get washed out
and away and then re-building it again in perpetuity. Get it?

>
> Wrt IEs bugs, the very same day the big sites stop providing IE-
> specific work arounds in their code, M$ will be forced to fix them or
> the users will be forced to upgrade to a better browser (!IE).

You didn't read a word I said, did you?

>
> Wrt web apps, take a look at the programs in your "start" menu, and
> you'll discover that ~ 90% of them could -as of today- very well and
> easily be replaced by web apps.

Not a chance. Most Web apps are incapable of providing basic
functionality for even a fleeting moment in time.

> Even Photoshop which is not exactly
> the best candidate for a web app, has already a web app version, as
> you know. Less capable, yes, but it's there, and it's a start.

And what is it built atop? That's all I really need to know about it.
And how many professional graphics designers would opt for it over the
desktop version?

>
> Wrt web apps, note that nowadays most people are already spending most
> of their time @ the browser.

Except when they are doing something other than browsing. ;)

> IOW, the browser is already the preferred
> app platform.

That doesn't follow at all.

>
> The web has already moved forward quite a bit lately, and is moving
> forward even further, and will get there with or without M$,
> regardless of IE. Currently M$'s best hope is not to be left behind.

I want the last few seconds of my life back. :)

>
> Yours, Cornford's and many other's attitude is outdated and against
> the web's best interests. :-)

You are deluded.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: ECMA-262-3 in detail. Chapter 4. Scope chain.
Next: FAQ Topic - What is the Document Object Model (DOM)? (2010-03-22)