I meant to hold SOAP headers up as a good example of allowing space in a spec for innovation and extension. As I look back now, the wording is unclear at best. Sorry!
3. Microsoft (or any other commercial vendor) would claim that they need to be able to modify or extend the "standard" format in order to be able to innovate new features. This is actually a valid complaint, and difficult to work around. If you allow proprietary extensions to a standard format, it's no longer truly standard.
Vendors may argue that, but I do not believe it to be true. Take Mozilla as an example. The value of Mozilla is that it correctly implements several standards (html, http, css1, css2... well, it comes close anyway) and in it's ease of use and interface (tabs, pop-up blocking, cookie management). Mozilla did not need to change anything about the content it displays to become my favorite browser.
Perhaps Microsoft could innovate by making Word more intuitive, reducing its footprint, or just implementing a spec that others find difficult (e.g. docbook).
Side note - I would consider a standard that did not allow for an extension mechanism (e.g. SOAP headers) to be short-sighted.
I write this as a standards-loving web developer who has been fooling with Visual Studio.NET for 2 months...
It is going to be UGLY when the 35 Million Gecko users (I know, shush) smack up against hundreds of ASP.NET sites built in VS.NET WYSIWYG mode. There is a compatability mode but it drops back to Netscape 4 which also won't work correctly.
It's interesting to me that no one seems to be thinking bigger on this AOL issue. Yes, Mozilla works great as a a "fuck you" to Microsoft (and a better browser to boot) but it also trojan horses in an entire cross platform GUI development environment.
AOL might be smart to look at releasing a version of their client software that is bootstrapped off of Mozilla. Instant cross-platform GUI without separate dev teams for for win32, mac, etc.
I agree, it is possible that this blows up in AOL's face. From my point of view, who cares? Maybe AOL loses 10 million customers - no skin off my nose. What I like is that I can now say to my boss, "In a year or so there are going to be 30 million AOL users forced into using the Gecko rendering engine. We need to write good front end code." And that statement won't be 100% true but the concept is right and even better, it will work.
For the record, while Opera's layout engine and CSS support is excellent, it's DOM (Javascript) capabilities are very poor.
Your're missing my whole point. I like the standards. I use the standards. I don't need a lecture on the benefits of avoiding proprietary extensions.
Microsoft's history of breaking standards is what makes me unimpressed when I hear "but C# is an ECMA standard" Standards mean nothing to Microsoft outside of the PR department.
Is that a reason not to use DOM, LDAP, Kerberos, IMAP, and HTTP ? Who cares what Microsoft do with them ?
I care. I need to create a web service that is available for java servlet clients, Office XP clients, windows DNA clients, and custom C++ clients. What happens if I build my product on.NET and them Microsoft decides to embrace and extend the SOAP standard in a manner which breaks half of my clients?
If I was developing a.NET web service, I would not be comfortable telling my clients to expect standards support. That position explains how I feel about all of Microsoft's standards compliance (or lack thereof).
A Microsoft guy came to sell.NET to my company on Wednesday. I mentioned to him that Microsoft's security history is one of the biggest reasons for us to delay adoption and he came back with the exact same story here - that February would be bug-fix month.
Bottom line, if Microsoft is lying, they're lying consistently.
Considering that C# and the CLI are ECMA standards exactly how does Microsoft control the Mono platform?
DOM, LDAP, HTML, Kerberos, IMAP, WebDAV, HTTP,...
What do these things have in common? They are all industry standards that Microsoft decided they didn't feel like being compatible with. Many would even say that Microsoft saw opportunity to leverage a monopoly by breaking standards compatibility.
Putting aside patent issues, your point that Mono is not controlled by Microsoft directly is clearly true. But do not put "Microsoft" and "standards" in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously.
Re:Gecko's home page doesn't render on NS4!
on
Galeon 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Are you serious? XUL is the answer to your question and it is a big part of the reason Mozilla is so large.
HTML 2.0 and CSS1 haven't been "buggered" with for years (1995 and 1996 respectively), is it too much to ask for IE to support those standards (let alone XHTML or CSS2)?
Tomcat is a servlet container, not an EJB container. As such, it can only run servlets, jsp's (which really are just special cases of servlets), and javabeans. You need an EJB container to run EJB's. The most popular open-source EJB container is JBoss (it also integrates very well with Tomcat).
Your are correct in saying that you never instantiate an EJB directly, you ask the container for a reference to an EJB and the container can instantiate a new EJB for you or reuse an old one or pull one out of a pre-existing pool.
BTW, you may want to look into using JAAS (Java Authentication and Authorization Services) which was released today as a component of J2EE 1.3 for some of your security needs.
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
that will disallow any calls to window.open from the onload or onbeforeunload events. in other words, you can kill pop up advertisements without killing window.open (which can be useful).
For this test, I took a 370kb page from Slashdot page. I saved the page out, rather than use it on the site, since comments could be added on the site which would skew the results.
It's even worse than that - it took him that long to render pages off his own disk. Apparently he was rendering Shrek in the background.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant to hold SOAP headers up as a good example of allowing space in a spec for innovation and extension. As I look back now, the wording is unclear at best. Sorry!
Vendors may argue that, but I do not believe it to be true. Take Mozilla as an example. The value of Mozilla is that it correctly implements several standards (html, http, css1, css2
Perhaps Microsoft could innovate by making Word more intuitive, reducing its footprint, or just implementing a spec that others find difficult (e.g. docbook).
Side note - I would consider a standard that did not allow for an extension mechanism (e.g. SOAP headers) to be short-sighted.
I write this as a standards-loving web developer who has been fooling with Visual Studio .NET for 2 months...
.NET sites built in VS.NET WYSIWYG mode. There is a compatability mode but it drops back to Netscape 4 which also won't work correctly.
It is going to be UGLY when the 35 Million Gecko users (I know, shush) smack up against hundreds of ASP
there's also uabar, the UserAgent toolbar. Allows you to change your UA String while browsing and gives you a nice selection of common choices.
It's interesting to me that no one seems to be thinking bigger on this AOL issue. Yes, Mozilla works great as a a "fuck you" to Microsoft (and a better browser to boot) but it also trojan horses in an entire cross platform GUI development environment.
AOL might be smart to look at releasing a version of their client software that is bootstrapped off of Mozilla. Instant cross-platform GUI without separate dev teams for for win32, mac, etc.
FYI, Mozilla can do gestural input:
http://optimoz.mozdev.org/gestures/
I agree, it is possible that this blows up in AOL's face. From my point of view, who cares? Maybe AOL loses 10 million customers - no skin off my nose. What I like is that I can now say to my boss, "In a year or so there are going to be 30 million AOL users forced into using the Gecko rendering engine. We need to write good front end code." And that statement won't be 100% true but the concept is right and even better, it will work.
For the record, while Opera's layout engine and CSS support is excellent, it's DOM (Javascript) capabilities are very poor.
here's a thread (J2EE considered harmful) on the jakarta-general list that precipitated the Apache statement.
Your're missing my whole point. I like the standards. I use the standards. I don't need a lecture on the benefits of avoiding proprietary extensions.
Microsoft's history of breaking standards is what makes me unimpressed when I hear "but C# is an ECMA standard" Standards mean nothing to Microsoft outside of the PR department.
I care. I need to create a web service that is available for java servlet clients, Office XP clients, windows DNA clients, and custom C++ clients. What happens if I build my product on
If I was developing a
A Microsoft guy came to sell .NET to my company on Wednesday. I mentioned to him that Microsoft's security history is one of the biggest reasons for us to delay adoption and he came back with the exact same story here - that February would be bug-fix month.
Bottom line, if Microsoft is lying, they're lying consistently.
DOM, LDAP, HTML, Kerberos, IMAP, WebDAV, HTTP,
What do these things have in common? They are all industry standards that Microsoft decided they didn't feel like being compatible with. Many would even say that Microsoft saw opportunity to leverage a monopoly by breaking standards compatibility.
Putting aside patent issues, your point that Mono is not controlled by Microsoft directly is clearly true. But do not put "Microsoft" and "standards" in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously.
Are you serious? XUL is the answer to your question and it is a big part of the reason Mozilla is so large.
I tried to bookmark your site but it didn't work because you use frames.
I can use it to pick the lock on my apartment door.
HTML 2.0 and CSS1 haven't been "buggered" with for years (1995 and 1996 respectively), is it too much to ask for IE to support those standards (let alone XHTML or CSS2)?
Yeah, but they call them bonds.
Tomcat is a servlet container, not an EJB container. As such, it can only run servlets, jsp's (which really are just special cases of servlets), and javabeans. You need an EJB container to run EJB's. The most popular open-source EJB container is JBoss (it also integrates very well with Tomcat).
Your are correct in saying that you never instantiate an EJB directly, you ask the container for a reference to an EJB and the container can instantiate a new EJB for you or reuse an old one or pull one out of a pre-existing pool.
BTW, you may want to look into using JAAS (Java Authentication and Authorization Services) which was released today as a component of J2EE 1.3 for some of your security needs.
little bit offtopic but...
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
that will disallow any calls to window.open from the onload or onbeforeunload events. in other words, you can kill pop up advertisements without killing window.open (which can be useful).
1. I'm cheap
2. I'm a show-off.
not necessarily in that order.