Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- Subject: Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- From: Michael Engelhart <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:11:01 -0500
Thanks Xavier.
I actually don't use anything but BBEdit or vi when building sites
using J2EE technologies so editing the code that WOBuilder creates is
really not an issue at all and is something I expect to do. Your
points are all well taken.
Much of my issues I believe are that because I'm on the learning curve,
i find it annoying to be worrying about silly things like DOCTYPE's and
what they may or may not mean for the longer term future of WO. I
guess I just need to put some trust that Apple will not drop future
support for WO in the next 2 or 3 years. Then again the lifespan of a
web project isn't measured in tens of years so if WO will do what I
need today, it's highly likely that I'll be alright.
Thanks again
Mike
On Feb 25, 2004, at 8:56 AM, Dev WO wrote:
Point taken but my concerns lie in the fact that the HTML 4 spec has
been out for many many years and WOBuilder still outputs HTML 3.2
which makes me nervous.
Yes, you're right Mike, it feels "strange" to have "only" HTML3.2. and
it should be at least HTML4 (or even an option to choose in different
doctype).
Concerning the "many years", it doesn't say that much concerning the
"support" of web browser, for example, CSS2 are out since may 12th
1998! and there are no browser that support them perfectly. Mozilla
and Safari (their respective engine) supports them quite well though,
but not since 1998.
And for exemple, a basic attribut/parameter (the position:fixed) is
still not supported by the latest version of Internet Explorer (IE Mac
"supports" it, but it doesn't support the "a" parameters when in a
fixed div!! so it's even worse). This little parameter would get ride
of these stupid frameset, but just because Internet Explorer is the
most used browser (and the worst one by the way compared to Mozilla or
Safari) some still use frameset...
This is just to say that a spec may be useful only many years after
the "publication"
I'm less concerned with having a fully XHTML site but I'd really
like to see the option to show that Apple is keeping up with the
Jones's.
You're 100% right, sometimes I'm wondering if someone works there;)
I can guarantee that if Macromedia Dreamweaver, BBEdit or Adobe
GoLive output HTML 3.2 formatted templates only nobody would use
those tools.
A template is one thing, being really compliant is another...
Concerning Dreamweaver and GoLive, they're just amatory tools, you
can't produce a real compliant website with these "tools", if you
don't believe me, just try to validate a page (real one, not a basic
thing) done with these "tools" (the Adobe website is done with GoLive
6, and not standard compliant at all)
BBedit is a great tool though.
But to make a real website, you must know the language (HTML/XHTML,
CSS), here's what I'm saying when someone doesn't understand why
Dreamweaver isn't a real tool:
"When you want to speak to let say a spanish, don't you think an
electronic assistant isn't enough?, so how can you believe talking
"Web" with Dreamweaver..."
There are other consideration behind having a non standard compliant
website (so the use of these "tools"), like licence fees, political
and ethical view, but it's not the point here.
It just rings of not being well developed by Apple. I realize
there are numerous factors involved in changing WO to be more
"current" but to start a project and try and convince peers it's
worth risking on a large project is hard to do especially when the
tiny bit of marketing hype Apple and the authors of the books out
there always point to are Fortune 500 websites like Disney, Adobe,
and the BBC none of which appear to use WO on their external web
sites.
It's not because you're big, earn a lot of money that you're doing the
right choices...even for yourself!
I've just checked:
Adobe: 1 fatal error on the first page (and every page in fact) + more
than 100 error on a single page
BBC: 23 error on the first page
Disney: 2fatal error + 203 error on the first page!
The people in charge of these website aren't professional, they don't
know anything about Internet, and they highly ruined the future of
Internet by not respecting the standards and the freedom of choice of
their users...
There are many people that use WO, Apple itself for the ADC site, for
the iTunes music store, for the Apple Store, Omnigroup, and many other
in Switzerland for exemple.
I do agree that Apple needs help regarding communication on its
products, and should promote a lot more their technologies, and also
people that use them...
Xavier
I guess they could all be using mod_rewrite but who knows.
Mike
On Feb 25, 2004, at 7:43 AM, Dev WO wrote:
If I can just give a point:
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.