I hate to do "me too"s, but I've been trying to put my feelings into words and this is as close to my thoughts as anything I've written down. Just wanted Colin to know he isn't hanging in the wind. ;) -Paul
Colin Sharples wrote: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems like the top priority of web development and > > this list in particular has become complying with > > standards. While I agree that is important and we've > > shot ourselves in the foot before, I think we're > > forgetting that the absolute number one priority in > > any UI development should be to make the user's life > > easier. > > In my personal opinion, the one single way that developers can make the > user's life easier is by sticking to standards. If all the browsers adhered > to the standards, life would be easy, because every browser would be able > to use every web site. I know, I know, you're going to say "but none of the > browsers *do* adhere to the standards, therefore we have to support browser > specific extensions". To me, though, that attitude sounds a lot like "well, > I'll put in features for the browsers I like, and screw the users who want > to use a different product, that's their tough luck". > > My feeling is that a better approach for all concerned would be simply to > stick with the standards. If the standards don't support the latest groovy > gimmicks, well a) that's the price you pay for ensuring everything works, > and b) there are processes in place for evolving standards to incorporate > new technologies. Again, there's a standard response to that argument along > the lines of "but we live in web-time, and can't hang around for standards > to catch up". Well, I think the dot-com crash has shown what a > spectacularly short-sighted attitude that is, and that "web-time" is a > complete fallacy. > > Let me reiterate that these are purely personal opinions, and I appreciate > there that there are other viewpoints. If it were up to me, which it isn't, > then only standards-compliant features should be allowed. However, the > pragmatic approach is surely along the lines of - standards first, then if > support for non-standard extensions can be incorporated without breaking > standards-compliance, fine. Finally, remember - and this is an important > point - people are always free to extend Struts in any way they want, > including trampling all standards to a bloody pulp, just as long as they > don't expect that such extensions will make it back into the core product. > There's nothing wrong with not being standards-compliant, as long as you > don't pretend that you are being compliant (which IMHO is the biggest > problem with HTML - vendors are perfectly free to extend HTML in any way > they want, and can still call their products HTML-compliant). > > Regards > > Colin M Sharples > I/T Architect > Business Innovation Services Group > IBM New Zealand > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > phone: 64-4-5769853 > mobile: 64-21-402085 > fax: 64-4-5765616 > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
