I think we are both coming at this thing the same, but just from a
slightly different direction. I agree with almost everything you say,
but personally I would prefer to see the standard layed down agree by
all before it is implemented. Implementing something without telling
anyone else first is where the problems come from. I agree the
standard should be expanded and improved upon, of course as technology
so the standard in to expand to include new things, but simply sitting
there and going, "oh this is a good idea i'll stick that in" simply
isn't a good way forward for the developer community. I think the W3C
need to take more external advice from developer how actually have to
use their standards in day to work, not just from the people that make
the browser products like MS and Mozilla.
BTW, you English is excellent...
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:05:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Anyone looking for a java WYSIWYG online textarea replacement...
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>I agree that the Mozilla documentation is poor, maybe if you feel that
strongly you could offer to help write some,
If I were one of the author, I sure would do. But not being one of
them, I would need docs to learn
how it works first. ;-)
The problem with Mozilla is that they refer you to the W3C docs, but
these are even worse.
>>I don't agree that sticking to the standard should mean expanding upon it.
I stick to the French language standard as much as I can.
But I'm also able to use English, ... well at least I do my best ;-)
>>The standard is there so the people like us whole program DHTML in the
browser know that if you use a command in one browser it will work in
all browsers that comply with the standard in the same way.
Exact, this is why those who write standard have a big
responsability: make a standard
that makes sense.
W3C standard does not. Just to cite a few flaws:
- no block elements are not resizable (ie: span) Why? Is it so
difficult to implement?
IE was able to resize non block elements even before the standard
was written.
- no integer values for element dimensions (ie: pixelLeft, etc.). in
order to work on them, one must parse
text properties that include units at the end. Now this is really
ridiculous, DHTML is supposed to be done
by programming or what?
>>Expanding on the standard only causes problem as IE has shown. Adding extra
stuff only causes programmers problem,
Again, I agree with that, but not when adding extra stuff is need to
palliate a lack of functionality in the standard.
Take for instance WYSIWYG HTML editors, the unbeilivable number of
available species proves there is a need for
them, it is a shame there is nothing in the standard to make one.
Microsoft has implemented HSTML editing with the execCommand method.
Now Mozilla has implemented similar facilities (although not as functional),
and this is not in the "standard".
And last but not least (See my English, wow! ;-)
the role of any standard is NOT to show the way, it is to set a
common basic practice for everybody.
If everybody was strictly complying to standard, there would be NO
standard, and nothing to standardize.
It is thanks to developers who make extras that new ideas can come
and enrich standards.
When Netscape -- a great company before it was swallowed by AOL --
brought us _javascript_,
it was NOT standard, now _javascript_ is part of the standard, for the
benefit of all of us.
--
_______________________________________
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
(Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Thanks.________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
