Hi Robert, Please see my replies below... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert S. Sfeir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of list witango-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:43 AM Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: XML is change (was: IE browser share now 93% in2002 (Off topic news))
> Just curious about a couple if things: > > I can see why you might want to use XML only, but if you wanted browser > compatibility why not use XSLT for data transformation to HTML to all > browsers? It's just a matter of changing a template when you want to > display data differently, something that takes just as long as designing a > new HTML page really. You've hit the nail on the head! All in good time of course. Much like the frustration many have vented about client-side JavaScript being inconsistant across the different flavours of browsers - client-side XSLT is also not consistant or even exist in some browsers. Reliable and consistant server-side XSLT for all platforms has not arrived yet in my opinion. Plus I'm waiting for pre-emptive threading for use with Witango and to see what XSL support may be available to us in the future. As far as client-side XSLT goes - I view the arrival of Mozilla 1.0 to be an important one. Mozilla's gold status may not noticably influence the mighty gods of MSIE, but I think it will sway all the other browser makers to get their ducks in a row by measuring their product capabilities against Mozilla's performance. Mozilla is a serious competitor - not to MSIE, but all the other browsers. Like developers used to say about Java - I only want to write my XML once and deploy it across many platforms :-) In the meantime - I'm testing, learning and planning. I'll write articles as I go, when I can. > Also since I'm not a huge fan of MS, or MS SQL, does MS SQL index your xml > when it's stored so you can write searches later based on the indexed XML in > your database? Although MS SQL-Server supports XML for feeding data into and out of the database - saddly it does not store data in native XML format. SQL-Server works well for most things, which one of the reasons we use it. But I'm not married to it all. When the XML database market matures some more or when SQL.NET comes out, I'll likely re-examine my strategy here. Change does take time :-) > I'm an Oracle, or MySQL fan when I don't want to be a DBA >:-), it has some advantages I like when it comes with dealing and working > with XML, like indexing the XML trees so that when you use context search, > you can actually select data right out of the tree, and it's darn fast for > that. Make life easier when using XML-RPC too. Your information is tempting me :-) But I still don't have time to be a DBA :-( > Have you tried Mozilla 1.0? It too does XML and is based on nothing BUT > standards and works the same on any platform. Even has a DOM inspector > built in. Like I mentioned - I view the arrival of Mozilla 1.0 to be an important one. Mozilla 1.0 introduces new stiff competition for the non-MSIE market. We may yet see some predictable reliability when it comes to cross-browser coding between Mozilla-class browsers and MSIE. Cross-browser coding during the old browser war was gross because client-side Scripting and HTML was still very immature. But things are different now. > I'm not trying to start a fight either, I'm just curious to understand your > approach v/s how I prefer to approach. My approach is to build applications that loads the presentation layer once and only have XML data exchanged between client and server - for speed and efficiency. This of course breaks the traditional web-development model in terms of methodogy. Here is one example: http://xml-extra.net/webpage.xmlx?node=59 (MSIE 5.0 on Windows required of course) I've built our entire Intranet Product, called Salsa, based on this model. http://salsa.plusinternational.com XML is fun :-) >I think it's pretty awesome that > your clients are willing to work with the latest and not be so hung up on > which browser to use. Obviously your applications are meant for internal > office use, and I've not had the opportunity (or luck I should say :-) ) to > be able to write something that is just internal with a very controlled > environment. Yes, we are lucky. We've made sacrifises - but I think the long term benifits of specializing are enormous. Cheers... > R > > On 6/18/02 2:25 AM, "Scott Cadillac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > R > > -- > Robert S. Sfeir > Senior Java Engineer > NIH/CIT/DECA > e:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > v:1.301.594.2900 > f:1.301.480.3232 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > 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
