|
Joe Pluta wrote:
atFrom: qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
It seems to me that the best use of development money (where the world
large is the audience, not a closed environment such as within acorporate
LAN where corporate standards might dictate choices) would be to spendit
along standard lines. If a standards body exists, then those standards
should be followed and not the 'standard' of a particular company.
That's a nice thought, but historically speaking unattainable. Take a simple example: SQL syntax. SQL has been around for about 30 years (Oracle's product is over 25 years old), and has had three different releases of standards (SQL89, SQL92 and SQL99). And still they haven't standardized the syntax for returning the first (N) rows of a query. Because of this, each vendor has created their own extension and to no-one's surprise, none of the vendors match. SQL Server, Informix, Oracle, DB2 and MySQL all have a different syntax.
With browsers, the issue is rarely in how the code is rendered. Eventually everybody ends up agreeing on that for the most part. This is where Mozilla spends a lot of its time, trying to keep up with the latest standards for things like CSS, and doing a reasonable job.
The big problem with browsers is what is called the Document Object Model, or DOM. Somewhere along the line, it became clear that an entire HTML document, no matter how complex, could be represented as a set of nodes not unlike an XML document. By exposing this model to the programmer via JavaScript, that allowed for some incredibly powerful techniques. Relatively simple code allows you to create functions that closely mimic 5250 behavior.
The problem is that there is a dearth of standardization in this area, and so each vendor does their own thing. Microsoft has invested a ton of money in this area and simply blows everyone else away, including what I consider to be the best online documentation in the world today, Microsoft's MSDN site.
In any case, things that can be done in IE simply cannot be done in Mozilla today. A simple example: I can dynamically change the user's keystroke from a lower-case 'a' to an upper-case 'A' (just like we do in the 5250). This is because the character value in the keypress event is updatable. In Mozilla, this property is read-only. Without this capability, I have to choose between some pretty ugly workarounds.
Anyway, enough on this. It's not a religious issue. If your company can afford you taking the time to make your code browser-agnostic, then more power to you. But if you don't, and you have to choose a specific bropwser to support, then don't feel bad: it's just a business decision.
Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.