On Sunday 10 April 2005 02:20 am, Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > There's still a difference between browsers. Different browsers render > differently, and always will.
So what? No one said that the rendering had to be identical. Simply intelligible is fine. If the rendering of different browsers of the obvious standards PGA recommended is not intelligible then "their bad." > >This is fine for a developer, but most end users don't want to have to > >write an interface (or can't), they just want to get their work done. > > Who said the end user had to be the interested party? Well dis them if you want, but end users tend to out number other users except for those products targeted at developers. Ignoring the naive end users completely misses PGA's point and simply suggests that you live in a small smug world. Good for you. Not everyone has that privilege. > Look at linux cd > burning and playing software- you have a choice of a bunch of GUIs, which > all tend to be front ends for 2 or 3 different CLI programs. This is a > great way to design a program. You have a fully functional CLI version, > and a choice of GUIs so you can pick your favorite. Or write your own > should none of the provided ones work for you. Its also good from a design > perspective- it absolutely garuntees a separation of the buisness logic and > the UI code. On the rare occasions I write anything with a GUI this is how > I end up doing it- I write a CLI version, test it, then throw a GUI on > top. Nothing wrong with this as a implementation strategy but it begs the key issue. How do you implement the GUI? PGA suggested that using the W3C HTML 4.01 standard and XHTML 1.0 standard and expecting a reasonable browser to render this in a sensible way is a practical solution to the question of implementing a GUI. I think PGA is right. How would you implement the GUI? Regards, boblq "SLB" > > Gabe -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
