Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE. Let me point that this is MY opinion : THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government. Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE optimized ) ? The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... old ways ( to put it mildly ). I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhhouch optimized, so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet. I'm gonna kill that beast (the site) if it's the last thing i'll do. Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be *hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ... On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but... You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) I never saidmy site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating.The contenteven works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-) My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-) On 7/15/05, Mugur Padurean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE. Let me point that this is MY opinion :THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the option to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government.Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE optimized ) ? The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... old ways ( to put it mildly ).I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhhouch optimized, so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet. I'm gonna kill that beast (the site) if it's the last thing i'll do.Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be *hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ... On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote: [From a PC mag article] In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. I would say that this statement is not the complete story. The available canvas still is of interest to web developers and coders -- whether the OS works with pixels or Bezier curves. Basically, the users' human factors, combined with the monitor's width, height and resolution, determine how many menu items (or icons) will fit next to eachother. A 23 widescreen display still would offer a lot more space to organize content, branding and navigation than a typical handheld device. Don't throw your dedicated handheld-optimized version out of the window yet. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? If you want scalabale vector graphics online, I'd still go with Flash. It'll take some time before a version of IE with the necessary XHTML/SVG/CSS support has a strong enough user base to warrant a switch from plugin to browser-only. Jeroen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
My whole point is... why bother? Why not? As I've written some posts back - most people have no extra expenses (or extra time / effort) delivering compliant sites, the only time consuming part is tweaking *for* IE, so I still can't see the point. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. I don't have it on laptop or smartphone (no MS platform). Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. That is sad. And yes, it happens. But, again, web document is not any kind of compiled / platform-dependent application, you don't have to refactor it for every target device, it is intended to be browser independent, if it's done properly. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
) if it's the last thing i'll do.Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be * hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ... On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
XAML is a document definition language which doesnt rely on a browser. It is a whole new technology which allows us to develop applications which are fed from a server. There is no browser. IE doesn't even come into it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jeroen Visser|vizi Sent: Fri 15/07/2005 08:11 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? On Jul 15, 2005, at 2:54 AM, Paul Ross wrote: [From a PC mag article] In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. I would say that this statement is not the complete story. The available canvas still is of interest to web developers and coders -- whether the OS works with pixels or Bezier curves. Basically, the users' human factors, combined with the monitor's width, height and resolution, determine how many menu items (or icons) will fit next to eachother. A 23 widescreen display still would offer a lot more space to organize content, branding and navigation than a typical handheld device. Don't throw your dedicated handheld-optimized version out of the window yet. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? If you want scalabale vector graphics online, I'd still go with Flash. It'll take some time before a version of IE with the necessary XHTML/SVG/CSS support has a strong enough user base to warrant a switch from plugin to browser-only. Jeroen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
David Pietersen wrote: Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but... You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) I never said my site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating. The content even works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-) My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch. I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible. Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-) IMHO, it seems to me that everything you are saying here are basically all the same reasons to adopt web standards as part of the systems development lifecycle. It does take more effort to learn to apply web standards, but the whole point is that there is less pain for both the user and developer in the process. If you can't see that then why bother, and I'd have to agree with you, just go back to being happy with tag soup. But there is also something else at play here, in that if it is a government department, there is probably some form of CMS involved and all the government procedures for managing digital documents, and that may or may not allow easy upgrades in the design, and some systems/CMSs are a nightmare to try to deploy standards compliant web sights. In regards to large organisations, you are right, if the site is quite workable and accessible, it may create more problems than it's worth to try and implement a fix. But at the same time I think the experience of people on this list is that they achieve everything you aim for in accessibility and multiple deployment, and maybe more so, by using web standards, at least in the environments they work in. Not only that, when you want to redesign your site, in any way, let alone upgrade it to address future technologies or devices, there is a lot of evidence to show that there is a big difference between those who do so with a base of standards compliant documents and those whose ones are marked up in tag soup. This is something that quite often cannot be solved just by developing in web standards. In large organisations the real problem is systems that are able to transform documents whilst maintaining the document structure, semantics and metadata. There are hardly any systems out there that can do that. But those who are looking to solve these problems, and have a keen eye to making sure the architecture and systems they are using will be able to accommodate such changes, along with being able to quickly adopt new technologies like SVG, AJAX, etc, will be in a far better position than those systems that are not trying to address these problems. Also, IMHO, I feel that the overall quality of solutions offered as a web standards approach as opposed to tag soup will always offer superior advantages when do well. Regards Geoff Deering ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On 7/15/05, wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think XAML needs to be hosted inside IE? No it doesn't need to be. I said You will be able to, not you must :) People need to take a step back here and stop the off topic rants. Go do some light reading or something: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnintlong/html/longhornch01.asp XAML = eXtensible _Application_ Markup Language ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: SPAM: RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Peter Firminger wrote: I often limit CMS Administration consoles to IE as I may well use an inline HTML editor (an Ektron one for example) that invokes a dll on the client. i thought ms was moving away from the dll. dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Dennis Lapcewich wrote: My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) great analogy!! d -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:54:22 -0400, Dennis Lapcewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE I have this conversation about once a week with a Windoze-centric-IE-only coworker. My response is always this: Just because a lot of people have something, doesn't mean it's the best of it's kind. Nearly 100% of those users just don't know better. They don't know that they can use something else, don't know how to switch to something else, or just plain don't care. sigh... -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Dennis, Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with round rims taking rubber tyres? Bob McClelland Dennis Lapcewich wrote: My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Isn't it funny that we were having these kinds of discussions about Netscape in '96? Why design for anything other than Netscape? We are finally getting standards that aren't tied to a particular browser implementation/build and we have to ask ourselves whether we want to use them? Give me a break...Coding for a particular browser is to doom the longevity of your design. The web is constantly in flux. Only third-party enforced specs will provide a reasonable foundation (enter W3C). -Nate ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
designer wrote: Dennis, Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with round rims taking rubber tyres? Bob McClelland as required by industry standards is the key fragment, bob. ie isn't playing by industry standards that are being and have been developed; they are trying to lead the industry toward a standard they have set that really doesn't work that well. dwain Dennis Lapcewich wrote: My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. Given a choice, would you rather drive on a gravel road with a vehicle using square rims and steel wheels just because the manufacturer says so, or would you want your vehicle to have round rims with rubber tires as required by industry standards? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
At least on the open road, the square wheelers would actually _see_ the error of their ways. You have to wonder what would happen if someone _physically showed_ that 95% the alternatives... On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:15:13 -0400, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your analogy is invalid. More to the point: if 95% of cars had square rims and steel wheels, would you set up a business making wheels with round rims taking rubber tyres? -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. As many systems use for some time... (KDE, Aqua/Quartz, ?) What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? There was some mentioning in this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Jun/0248.html Web page is mostly document. Not an application GUI. I'd compare Avalon's XAML to XUL+SVG. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates.Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnomealready have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not anapplication.SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here.Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in.Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm).Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patchesmade by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning youcan already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well.Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe inthe elusive Longhorn.As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or...Philippe---Philippe Wittenberghhttp://emps.l-c-n.com/** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On 15/07/2005, at 11:40 AM, David Pietersen wrote: But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. No, we're not. Yes, my Windows box has IE on it. Due to the way Windows is built, it's almost impossible to remove it. But do I use it? Not if I can help it (aside from testing purposes). I'd much rather use Mozilla or Firefox, but it doesn't stop me from having to have IE on my computer. Oh, and just an aside: I'm curious to know where your current research comes from, I must admit. If you're going to quote statistics, quote the source. Otherwise, it's really difficult to take them seriously. My $0.02 anyway. Seona. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
hmmmI smell Troll... You don't work for Microsoft do you David? :) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Pietersen Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. Bluntly, if you want by business you had better. I've been using Linux for far longer than I've been building websites and, if I have to go to another box in order to use your site... I'll go else where. Even if I have to open IE (since when I'm on a windows box I generally am using firefox) I'll likely go elsewhere. Even though statistics may show that the OS in question is Windows, IE to the last of my knowledge is loosing market share. My $0.02 Randall -- R. Potter Design and Development Lead Midnight Oil Design: http://www.midnightoildesign.com Pragmatic Programming Principle #59: Costly Tools Don't Produce Better Designs. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Um, yes? Bridges are also built for conditions that don't occur most of the year. I mean - you should not 'develop' for a platform, but in compliance with some guidelines and compatibility in mind. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Hi all Please try and keep this conversation on topic. We're not in the business of getting into a mine's better than yours conversation here (take them off list if you wish). The topic of web standards and how they complement proprietary techs like XUL, XAML , Flash etc is quite interesting, lets stick to that. Thanks James admin On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll... You don't work for Microsoft do you David? :) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Pietersen Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government. I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really.My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth evenconsidering? Just my 2 cents worth. On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmmI smell Troll...You don't work for Microsoft do you David?:) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David PietersenSent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) We all do, really.I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows.Every one of these machines has IE on it.Really, are we mad to develop for anything else?Discuss. On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome already have this build. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an application. SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here. Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full SVG support build in. Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm). Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself. Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well. Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in the elusive Longhorn. As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a background-image, or for a series of buttons, or... Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: SPAM: RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
Now cut that out (smile or no smile)! I use Windows machines exclusively and prefer to browse using IE as that's what my main audience uses. I pick up many things that Russ on his non Win/IE combination misses (not that he doesn't check but they are not his defaults and things do slip through). I'll check on the boutique browsers but until one of them gains the market share, IE is the default target. Keep in mind that I am an application developer, not a designer so I care little about the 'look', that's for the designer to look after. I am a huge standards advocate, but I'm also a realist that has real clients with real audiences. The previous comment was a good one. But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) This reference to web applications could mean an Intranet Application (known audience technology) for booking resources, filling in leave applications, database editing, phone lists etc. or a CMS Administration console or an online banking tool where you can specify (or test for) a specific user_agent and design a really great application in that framework. I often limit CMS Administration consoles to IE as I may well use an inline HTML editor (an Ektron one for example) that invokes a dll on the client. In my experience this is a lot more stable than Java applets and other stuff that will allow stand-alone (non operating system-integrated) browsers to use them. Peter hmmmI smell Troll... You don't work for Microsoft do you David? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
On 7/15/05, David Pietersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. Windows and Microsoft is a touchy subject for some people at the best of times. The numbers speak for themselves really (well, after you subtract Windows 98/NT/2000 and CE-based operating systems it may be something like randomfigure60%/randomfigure, but in saying that, it all depends on your target market. If you're making websites using (X)HTML/CSS/JS and following web standards then you aren't targetting a specific OS/platform/user-agent - and that's what web standards are all about. You build things according to standards so that you aren't tied to OS/platform/user-agent X, thus (hopefully) making your site accessible as possible. The difference is when you are purposefully targetting an /application/ to a specific group of people who are known to run platform X or user-agent X. In the case of Avalon development, we'll have nice, new, powerful tools to create desktop or web-based applications for the target audience who runs Windows XP and Longhorn. Great! But at the end of the day, web standards should be unphased by Avalons arrival. Web sites will go on being web sites, and Avalon will open a new market. Just my 2c anyway :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
I work for the Government. So, that's sad. You shlould have DDA/WCAG in mind. Accessible page must be universal as far as posible. 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting. I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers We don't 'develop' for alternative browsers in my company. We just build web sites that adhere to standards (+ some insane IE tweaking). when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content? You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.) over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world That's different. Many webapps (GIS, panoramas) have some requirements. Even if I'm convinced that making an app compatible (see google maps) is possible, repairing the old ones is not worth it, if it is not requested. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss. I realise you said devices, but I'd like to stress that Windows does not equate with desktop PC running IE. It could (more and more these days) be a hand-held device where thoughtful design and accessibility are very important. (I'm talking less about screen- readers here as the original post was about graphics.) It *could* also be an Opera user (Opera defaults to telling websites it visits it is WinIE). This is apart from the growing number of people - even non-techie folks - using Firefox. The way in which the internet is being used is changing. Just because we (as individuals) might not have changed the way we use it, does not mean a general shift is not occurring - and the hand-held issue for one is big and getting bigger. Just food for thought. Vicki. :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
I dont think XAML needs to be hosted inside IE? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Justin Carter Sent: Fri 15/07/2005 02:19 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn Avalon - seismic shift for web standards? I dont think Avalon and XAML will directly impact the production of ordinary websites, but I think it may well stir up the world of web applications. Yes you will be able to host an application using XAML inside a web browser (presumably only IE?), but building a website this way would be a little bit crazy and severely limit your audience. Avalon will actually run on Windows XP as well as Longhorn - so there is the potentional for it to be quite widespread - however that still means that it'll be restricted to these two OS's which really isn't good enough if you're dedicated to accessibility. But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform.. :) On 7/15/05, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello folks, I was reading the June 2005 issue of APC (Australian Personal Computer) magazine which has a cover story on unique features built into the long-awaited Windows Longhorn OS including the Avalon presentation system/user interface. This section really got me thinking: The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts icons), meaning designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping elements using pixels and x/y coordinates. In a nutshell, Avalon means developers are now free to code without considering the resolution of users' monitors. This ensures that apps developed in this environment will work on just about any display, from mobile phones and PDAs to wide-screen notebooks and high-end desktop systems. What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash? I searched the archives and no-one seems to have asked this question to the list before? What are peoples thoughts...? Regards PAUL ROSS SkyRocket Design Co http://www.skyrocket.com.au ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** winmail.dat
