> For one reason, people have an expectation that HTML applications work with > HTML clients. This expectation may be unreasonable given the current state > of affairs, but web sites are not packaged shrinkwrap that use > locally-executed binaries. The web was explicitly designed to be a > cross-platform environment, and to the extent that we build > platform-specific web applications we pervert this design.
This issue is between public web sites / applications v. private web sites / applications. With the public web there is no way to gauge browser or systems needed to support. However when given that information, much as in the case of an intranet application, wouldn't it just be irresponsible to not take advantage? > I agree that there may be some cases where it makes sense to use an > IE-specific codebase, especially if that happens to be what you already > have. However, what will happen to those 30+ intranet applications when > you're mandated to move to, say, Windows XP SP2? Or, in the case of ActiveX, > if your security administrators decide that they simply can't support it for > security reasons? Wouldn't you rather have standards-compliant code that > will work with any browser? Haven't had any problems with any upgrades. However I mentioned before we build all of our application with a strict seperation of the presentation layer on top of a core framework. As it stands I could update all of our applications to support a w3c standard supporting browser with simple edits to about 2 files and a few custom tags. But why? When I know for a fact, written in typical government security language, that only IE5.5+ is allowed. As for the someday things will change, we're moving towards RIA's and the client/server model, and away from HTML based UIs. > I think the argument is less about supporting Firefox specifically than > about supporting standards generally. It doesn't matter that you can't use > Firefox on your internal network now, when you may need to migrate your > sites to standards for future conformance. Again, though, I agree that the > answer will vary depending on your situation, and in many cases it probably > makes sense to go with what you already have. No Dave this argument is the same argument made time and time again on this list. Open source, Linux, and the latest and greatest non-M$ technology is inherently better for all situations and anyone who isn't 1337 enough to agree must be morons. The last 30 messages of this thread have been nothing but an assault on Andrew for making applications his way. > I don't think this is as simple as you think it is. What is eBay or Amazon? > Aren't those applications? Don't the requirements have more to do with the > users than with what the site actually does in most cases? Why do we think > that successful web applications might not have large enough userbases to > warrant wider compatibility? Again, public v private. Even in Nathan's case (which is very common) where you know you have Mac and PCs of all different flavors, why wouldnt he use that knowledge to expand beyond what the w3c considers standard and define his own standard based on his closed user based? Isn't that doing a better job of serving your users? > And, as for this application selling for $200K, does this mean that more > copies couldn't have been sold if it was standards-compliant? Has any actual > market research been done to see why sales were lost? Andrew states that no > sales have ever been lost. I don't really doubt Andrew on this, but often > developers don't ask themselves these sorts of hard questions, and if no one > else asks, things just continue as they have been. Personally, I have worked > with clients who rejected applications for being IE-specific, even when I > didn't think it made business sense for them to do so - of course, they may > know their core business better than I do! I agree 100% with standards and I wish IE wasn't such a PoS. But the bottom line is 90%+ saturation. To me, that defines IE as the standard. I mean the w3c doesnt seem to work, they have been preaching standards for nearly a decade now to no avail. If they cannot convice M$ to change IE, they dont have a standard. They are just driving the browser war back to where we were 10 years ago. This grassroots fireFox campaign will soon fade just as Netscape. Soon we'll have a google browser to add into the mix and I can't see Google spending R&D just to bring out a fireFox clone. (However they are in the office next week and I plan to pry every little bit of info I can about it) So what can we do? When I know my user base, I'm going to take advantage of it. When I don't, my code is 100% XHTML, CSS1 and 508 compliant. You dont want to take advantage of a closed user base, then so be it, but when you stand on a soap box to proclaim your superiority and 1337N3$$, thats when I have problem. Who are you to smash Andrew for building successful money making applications? This whole open-source/linux attitude has become a clique. For the last 15 years this mindset keeps telling me Linux is killing Windows.. now its how FireFox is going to kill IE. Thats fine, but lets atleast let one of them get a fourth of the market share before claiming them champion. All I ask is that you not call people on this list idiots if they dont agree with you. -Adam ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:186658 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
