Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- Subject: Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- From: Dev WO <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:29:48 +0100
I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I was talking about making
the html comply with the doctype perfectly, not about using
proprietary technology or proprietary html. I just know that
personally I have too much work to do to sit around worrying if every
single line of html is absolutely perfect.
I understand what you're saying Steve, but really it doesn't take that
much to make thing correctly. The first time it will take some time to
figure out how to do it, but it will rapidly become as fast as what you
are doing now. For exemple, when I make pages (template) for a web app
or a website, I have something like 9 pages on 10 that are "code
perfect" the first try.
The real challenge isn't really making compliant code, but also make
this page display correctly on most browser (because they just
"interpret" the standards, the rendering isn't always the one you
expect), on surely the waste of time comes from Internet Explorer that
double the time to make it work.
Let say that there's 20 way to do something, only 3 ways will be
standard compliant, and on these 3 ways, it's not sure you'll find one
that will really work. So sometimes you have to re-think to find
another way.
Of course it's not "easy", but really it's not impossible, and surely
it won't take more time than what you already take in a matter of weeks
(maybe a couple month).
And as I said before, if your pages aren't 100% standard compliance,
you can plan on wasting time to correct things when browsers are
updated, so I'm pretty sure you, your boss, your company won't "waste"
time to do it now.
It is really an "investment".
On Feb 25, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Dev WO wrote:
Hi Steve,
No you're not a bad person because your website aren't 100% standard
compliant. You are just someone that may not have the time to fully
understand the consequence of your act (I'm saying anything bad, but
maybe my english make it more "sharp" than it is;)) and maybe you
should try to educate your boss about what he wants for the future:
-When your doing a website that conforms to web standards, you can be
sure that it will still work when browsers are updated, and it is
definitely not the case with non standard website.
-It is just not productive to test your website on every browser,but
you're right we have to do it untill IE is dead, or maybe it will go
standard one day
-We must make a website that is accessible by everyone that use a
standard browser, whatever browser it is. We don't have the right to
kick someone out because of a specific browser as we must garantee
the freedom of choice of the user
-If you don't make your website 100% standard compliant, you reduce
the "power" of the standardization organism, that way you encourage
licence fees on technologies, and so Internet which was created for
interoperability won't be free anymore for your company, and for you
as a user. This is really bad, and when you're doing a website than
isn't compliant, you must realize that you (I mean webmaster that
don't want to know, no you specifically) are leading us that way.
Do you really think that Macromedia will leave Flash free if all
website use it?? they never asked to become a standard, because it
would have ruined the opportunity to ask people to pay for the
technology, so they're just waiting for "webmaster" to work the
easiest way possible without understanding where all this lead us.
Same for IE.
SVG is far more powerful and accessible than Flash, and free... but
there's no real authoring tools, so it's harder to work with it.
So basically, when must do website that are 100% standard compliant
(and even accessible if possible) to protect our work, our company,
and our users. When we do a website that doesn't conform, we just
hurt everyone.
I hope I made myself clear, and not too "I'm the best your a sh***",
this is really a constructive point.
Xavier
Le 25 fivr. 04, ` 19:12, steve stout a icrit :
So am I a bad person if I don't really care that my websites aren't
totally compliant with the specs? The pages work in every modern
browser that I've tried them in and to me that's all that matters.
I don't have the time to nit pick about things that 99.9% of the
users will never see when my boss just wants things done.
./steve
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.
_______________________________________________
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.