"I just don't build public web-sites for our clients period! And yes, we've turned down work because a customer had all Mac workstations - but that just means more work for someone else :-)"
I can be reached at the numbers and email address shown below. Feel free to forward my contact information to ANY Mac-based customers. Sincerely, Steve Smith Skadt Information Solutions Office: (519) 624-4388 GTA: (416) 606-3885 Fax: (519) 624-3353 Cell: (416) 606-3885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.skadt.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott Cadillac Sent: June 18, 2002 2:26 AM To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: XML is change (was: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic news)) Hi Garth, Well spoken and no, you're not starting a fight :-) I apologize to those of you I have 'dangerously' mislead. For the sake of clarity - I like to think I have a specialty and that is "Intranets", using XML and the following tools: -- For Intranet client-side coding I only write for MS Internet Explorer, because it supports XML, it's the best and offers the most choices. -- For Intranet server-side solutions, I write with Witango, because it's written in XML, supports XML, it's the best and offers the most choices :-). -- For Intranet data exchange between servers and clients, I use XML because it's the closest thing we have to a true platform independent language on this planet. -- For Intranet database solutions, I use MS SQL-Server because it's reliable and easy, supports XML and I don't have time to be a DBA as well as a web-developer. I just don't build public web-sites for our clients period! And yes, we've turned down work because a customer had all Mac workstations - but that just means more work for someone else :-) And no, I'm not 'religious' about MS. If I was - would I still be hanging onto and supporting Witango every way I can, after all this time? MSIE might truly be the most superior browser on the planet right now - but I know it won't last forever. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I wish someone would build a standards compliant browser that WORKS! Until then MSIE is it. -------------------- My "goal" is to build everything in XML. From the database, to the server, to the client - a pure XML core all the way - browser wars, platform issues and language barriers be damned! -------------------- If XML isn't about change and the future - I'll eat my shorts! By the way - here's an article I put together over the weekend that's a completely browser independent issue. Let me know what you think. XML Primer (from my presentation at the Conference). http://xml-extra.net/webpage.xmlx?node=68 Cheers buddy :-) Scott Cadillac http://xml-extra.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] VP, Research and Development Plus International Corp. 604-460-1843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.plusinternational.com Vancouver, BC, Canada Does your company have an Enterprise Information Portal? Check out Salsa at www.plusinternational.com/flash/salsa.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garth Penglase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of list witango-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic news) > Hi Scott, > I actually disagree with a lot of what you have said, and I'm not trying to > pick a fight, but to highlight an approach which I consider can be > dangerous to advancement in any industry. > > Yes, it is easier to code for a specific platform and wouldn't we all be > much happier if that was the case. But our clients wouldn't - because > competition and a different approach spurs innovation. > > I have followed this list for a long time and I notice that you are very MS > centric. But I feel your reasons are 'religious' ones. You use MS > technologies and therefore you know them inside out but you seem to > indicate that these things can't be done without MS tools, which is just > not the case - that's similar to the argument that ColdFusion & PHP > developers have used against tango without them knowing what tango can do. > > I've just come back from a client who only uses IE browsers and had to help > them resolve perennial caching issues that they experience when accessing a > admin site I coded for them, which Netscape doesn't suffer from, but I > don't penalise them for me having to ensure that my products work with > their browsers. Now I could never hint that your work is poor - I am sure > it is excellent knowing your experience, but your argument is based around > your experience with MS and not having to (or wanting to) move outside of > that arena. > > The main point I want to emphasise is that things change constantly, and > not even MS will around forever at the level they are now - if you align > yourself with one company, then that's your choice, but it carries with it > the danger of becoming a slave to a way of doing things, and the industry > can pass you by. Also, while it may be easier to use inbuilt technologies > and integrated development suites, there are often better solutions if your > horizon is widened. > > While I think that you are on a good track for yourself and your company > which seems to be working for you particularly because you do develop > mainly for intranets, a more open approach to coding would probably be > better for the majority of developers, and coding for multiple browsers > forces us to use a variety of technologies, putting the power back into the > marketplace for innovation and progression. > > Garth > > At 11:30 14/06/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi Steve, > > > >Please see my replies below... > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Steve Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Multiple recipients of list witango-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:38 AM > >Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic news) > > > > > > > I didn't realize that BC's exchange rate was higher than Ontario's. > ><@GRIN> > > > >Sorry - I forgot you were one of us poor Canadians :-} > > > > > > > There is plenty to agree with in your comments. One thing that I've really > > > enjoyed about this list is that with topics like this, it has become a > >forum > > > to share our opinions. Unfortunately there was a period about a year ago > > > when it was just plain ugly. > > > >Well said. Likewise - I'm not trying to be ugly. > > > >Just presenting the prespective that our potential shouldn't be limited by > >'industry' view points. Otherwise, where would innovation be? > > > > > > > Whenever possible I try to follow the principles of people like Jakob > > > Nielsen who is one of the leading supporters of Web Usability. He does > >agree > > > that whenever the developer can control or knows for 100% certain that all > > > users will be using a certain browser and version than development can be > > > done to utililize that particular browser. So I agree with your comments > > > when it comes to developing for an intranet. > > > > > > However let me give you an Extranet 'for instance'. You develop a site for > >a > > > client to use as an Extranet. One of their users routinely visits two > > > Extranet sites, the one that you developed and another that was developed > >to > > > support both Netscape and IE. Their browser of choice happens to be > > > Netscape. Why should he switch browsers simply to be able to visit one > >site? > > > I would think that it would develop a level of dissatisfaction in that > >user > > > that might reach the point where he says "forget it" and stops dealing > >with > > > your client's site which may lead to him or her finding another supplier. > > > Your client can't understand why he/she lost a customer. I would think tha > >t > > > in most cases, if there is a surcharge up front for making sure that > > > Netscape works the client is likely to say forget it. > > > >Good point, but you can't please everyone all the time :-) If you try, > >you'll loose yourself in the process. > > > > > > > With regards to your characterization about IE being more forgiving. > >Another > > > way of looking at it could be that any surcharge to ensure other browsers > > > work is just a surcharge to cover poor development skills. > > > >Ouch! Well I guess I'm just a poor developer because I hate Netscape. > > > >Funny though that I've got more work than 3 people can handle :-} > > > > > > >Following on that > > > thought of course we shouldn't be made to pay for poor work that we do, we > > > should pass the buck. <@GRIN> I'm not trying to beat anyone up here, my > >post > > > was to point out that in the short history of the web we've heard the > > > expression, "the King is dead, long live the King" enough times to know > >that > > > nothing has stayed on top for very long. Change is imminent, change is > >also > > > very good. > > > >Yes, change is always good! And MSIE's superior support for Technologies > >such as XML is changing the web-development landscape considerably. > > > >The problem is some people are trying to change it back to the way it was. > >Good luck :-] > > > > > > > Hope this helps, > > > >Thank you for your time and your thoughts Steve. > > > >Take care. Cheers.... > > > >Scott > > > > > > > Steve Smith > > > > > > Skadt Information Solutions > > > Office: (519) 624-4388 > > > GTA: (416) 606-3885 > > > Fax: (519) 624-3353 > > > Cell: (416) 606-3885 > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Web: http://www.skadt.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott Cadillac > > > Sent: June 14, 2002 12:44 PM > > > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > > > Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic > > > news) > > > > > > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > > > Please see my replies below.... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Steve Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Multiple recipients of list witango-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:51 AM > > > Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic > >news) > > > > > > > > > > I got into the PC game in 1985. At the time, (on the Intel side) > >everyone > > > > either bought IBM or bought a clone although some bought from a new > > > company > > > > called Compaq. Almost every machine went out the door with a copy of > > > > WordPerfect and/or Lotus 123. These were the ONLY applications in their > > > > respective fields. I might be mistaken but I seem to recall WordPerfect > > > > charging a 'premium' for support, mainly because they could. > > > > > > > > Nobody had heard of Dell, Microsoft couldn't give Word away, and few if > > > > anyone knew they had a product called Excel. > > > > > > > > Around 1996 I remember supporting Tango 1.5 customers who were running > > > into > > > > problems caused by people hitting the sites they were developing who > >were > > > > using this 'new' Internet Explorer browser. Many just gave up and said > > > that > > > > they would not worry about the problems from this browser because there > > > were > > > > so few people using it. Hmmmm... > > > > > > A very good point Steve and an interesting tale too :-) > > > > > > As a matter of fact, I've been watching the recent Gold release of Mozilla > > > 1.0 with interest (and have even installed it). Although my developer > >career > > > revolves around building Intranet Applications designed exclusively for > >MSIE > > > (specifcally 5.0 or higher on Windows) - I am trying to be prepared for an > > > evolving future. > > > > > > If someone could actually build a 'standards' compliant browser that > >WORKS! > > > then I would consider it for inclusion in our development plans - but > >until > > > then, the current versions of MSIE is the only browser that delivers what > >it > > > promises (90% of the time). > > > > > > > > > > And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't many of the 'problems' associated > > > > with current versions of Netscape typically the work of sloppy coding > >that > > > > Netscape gets picky about but that IE just lets slip through? > > > > > > My personal characterization is that MSIE is more forgiving and > >inventive - > > > whereas Netscape just can't cope :-). > > > > > > > > > > I hate the idea of a surcharge being placed on coding for a 'different' > > > > browser. > > > > > > Time is money. Should we be the ones that pay the penalty by giving away > >our > > > time to debug HTML and JavaScript, that more often doesn't work in > > > Netscape - but does work in MSIE? > > > > > > > > > >What will be next? A surcharge for developing for users who 'Think > > > > Different'? > > > > > > I can't speak for anyone else - but our 'Market' is users that 'Think > > > Different'. > > > > > > We build Intranet Applications for Business users (and Accountants) that > >are > > > tired of funky web-sites with lots of pretty graphics or are loaded down > > > with Applets and Plugins. > > > > > > Our users that 'Think Different' want meat, functionality, flexiability > >and > > > they want it fast and without hassle. And they are thinking about this > > > outside of the simple HTML box. XML and several of Microsoft's Extension > > > play are large part in this by giving me Databinding, Behaviours and a > > > workable DOM via JScript. > > > > > > Should I dumb down all my functionality so a few other Browser wannabes > >can > > > play catch up - and limit my customer's abilities? I don't think so. > > > > > > Obviously I am talking about Intranet and Extranet Applications and not > > > public Internet sites in general, so please forgive me for muddying the > > > waters of this interesting discussion. > > > > > > > > > > Just my 2 cents, > > > > > > My 18 cents (Canadian Exchange :-). > > > > > > > > > > Steve Smith > > > > > > > > Skadt Information Solutions > > > > Office: (519) 624-4388 > > > > GTA: (416) 606-3885 > > > > Fax: (519) 624-3353 > > > > Cell: (416) 606-3885 > > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Web: http://www.skadt.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Macfarlane > > > > Sent: June 14, 2002 10:37 AM > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > > > > Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic > > > > news) > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a retail site with over 600,000 visitors a month. The stats are > > > > about the same. > > > > > > > > We're thinking on a surcharge for Netscape compatibility on projects. > > > > 90% of the debugging time is taken up by Netscape rendering issues. If > > > > satisfying 7% of your client base is important, then pay up. > > > > > > > > ....now if Microsoft would only make IE available as a plug-in for > > > > Netscape the problem would be solved (grin). > > > > > > > > - James > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Garth Penglase > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:46 PM > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > > > > Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic > > > > news) > > > > > > > > > > > > I would say that to use those statistic to prove that you need only code > > > > > > > > for IE is dangerous, as there is a much higher showing, right across the > > > > > > > > board, of existing NS browsers and Other browser users, on the web sites > > > > > > > > that I control. And nothing stays the same for too long in tech anyway. > > > > > > > > Remember different sources give different statistic on this, and the > > > > stats > > > > are be based on different questions (ie don't believe to much what you > > > > read > > > > from one source). Believe me, it'd make life a lot easier if there was > > > > only > > > > one browser to code for. > > > > Garth > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body
