Thankyou all for the interest in OSCAR! I feel I should clarify something here. OSCAR was produced for the McMaster teaching clinics here with a very tight timeline. We have succeeded in migrating from a DOS based product to a web-based product partly due to our change management team who began training users to use a browser very earlier on in the process. In our setting, IE has always been the browser of choice. Our programmers likewise have tested the OSCAR software using the IE browser. As far as I know, all of our javascript code runs on Mozilla and Netscape- most of the javascript we have is pretty run of the mill stuff. The problem is that some of our html isn't w3c validated ( i.e. it doens't conform exactly to the syntax that w3c wants) and thus it comes out looking all wonky in the open source browsers.
Here is an example of a form nested in a table that is w3c non-compliant, from what I know IE6 will take this no problem(because they allow, and try to interpret syntactically incorrect structures) but netscape and moz will probably barf on it. <form><table></form></table> If you change the form to <form><table></table></form> It becomes syntactially correct and everybody is happy. Our major problem is that ms rules for tables are very relaxed compared to the w3c(again ms supports w3c html, but they also support sloppy html). Since most of oscar is tested on ie only, we never see this w3c vs. sloppy difference. w3c is very picky about defining tables properly, ms isn't(although again ms supports w3c). It is common knowledge that ie supports w3c, but they also support "mistakes." So the claim against IE so far in this discussion isn't that it is not standards compliant but more likely that it is more tolerant than any open source browser. Arguably allowing sloppy html could lead to problems as xml and html become more integrated in the future but this is where we enter the realm of ideals and theory. I would very much like the discussion in this forum to change to "lending a helping hand" to make OSCAR run on Open Source browser rather than being a bit critical about how we get here. Otherwise I shall remain somewhat quiet and go on with a piece of work that I believe is moving ahead regardless... I remain a die hard believer in the Open Source movement, David David H Chan, MD, CCFP, MSc Assistant Professor Department of Family Medicine McMaster University ----- Original Message ----- From: "Schilling, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:35 PM Subject: Selling OSCAR to the average person (was RE: OSCAR update) > This thread is a good example to look at for some of the finer points of > selling software > to a hospital or clinic. > > See below. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Javier Bertoli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > On Wed, 8 May 2002, Tille, Andreas wrote: > > > > > > I think you misunderstood me. The statement was made > > that IE6 more closely > > > > follows the W3C recommendations than other browsers. If > > that's the case, > > > > IE6 is technically acceptable to write client code for. > > You write to the > > > > W3C recommendations, and IE6 works well because it follows the > > > > recommendations. That's good. > > > > Hi, > > I think tha Andreas is right in pointing that the real target > > should be to write W3C HTML 4.0 compliant software, not IE, Mozilla, > > Nautilus or any _BROWSER_ compliant software. > > > > In this case, if IE is more compliant than the others, > > it's OK to > > use it to test your soft compliance, as long as you don't > > forget that the > > real target is W3C HTML 4.0. > > > > History has shown (at least to me :-) that standard > > compliance has > > proven to be better than tying developments to a particular platform. > > Don't you think > > so? > > > Of course he's right. Look, the point is this: Dr. Chan never said that he > designed the interface to use IE6-exclusive functionality (like ActiveX > controls or specific IE6 DHTML). He said that IE6 implements the W3C > protocol better than other browsers. > > Here's what that means to you when you sell OSCAR to the average hospital > administrator or CIO who pays for the software in the company: If the > hospital uses IE6, you can tell them that OSCAR is "IE6 compliant," and tell > them that OSCAR also complies with the W3C recommandations. If the hospital > uses Netscape, you can tell them that OSCAR is "Netscape compliant," and > tell them that OSCAR also complies with W3C recommendations. In fact you > can probably tell everyone that OSCAR works on "any browser" and get away > with it. We all know why - because OSCAR was apparently built around W3C > standards. > > But, the moment you tell a hospital or clinic something that even implies to > them the need to change desktop software to run a product, you foster images > of major upgrade costs for the desktop. You absolutely need to assure the > end-users and confirm for them that there is no associated upgrade cost at > the desktop to use OSCAR. You want to foster images of cost-effective > computing attainable through the use of OSCAR. Keeping Open Source UNIX > with Zope in the cold-room is a much easier requirement for the client to > live with, both financially and emotionally. > > Besides that, it's not necessary to try and embarrass Microsoft by pointing > out technical problems with their products. If you offer solutions built on > computer science and medical informatics, as opposed to name-brand hype, the > technical problems and financial obstacles associated with a Microsoft > solution become self-evident. > > > > > Saludos > > > > Javier > > > > // > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- \\ > > "Let him who would move the world first move himself." > > > > (Socrates) > > > > > > Richard Schilling > Webmaster / Web Integration Programmer > Affiliated Health Services > Mount Vernon, WA USA > http://www.affiliatedhealth.org > phone: 360.856.7129 >
