I didn't say that a working group HAD to be better, but single entity "standards" typically are not designed with anything other than the entity in mind.
Yes, i have far too many examples than i can list here, but here are a few:
No way to extend already defined elements. If, for example I want to extend an element to include a new type of border element or style, you can't... at least not without breaking the standard.
Foreign elements are not required to be preserved. This means that if I DO extend the standard, no other application is required to preserve any elements not in the standard. This makes it effectively useless to extend it at all, since loading it into any other word processor will likely cause your data or formatting to disappear.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. First, Internet Explorer does not put it's name as the first part of the title. It puts the title of the page there.
Second, Windows groups multiple windows of the same app together and click on the group icon expands them out to show more space.
Third, Alt-Tabbing throught your application list will also give you the full title as you alt-tab through it.
But, all that is irrelevant, since the point of my post totally went over your head. Tabbed browsing violates human interface guildelines from both MS *AND* Apple. This is because it operates in a way that is different from every other application. That doesn't mean it's not useful or powerful, but that it's in conflict with the established guildelines.
Basically, we're talking about MDI, which is something MS has had for years and years, but has for the last 10 years only encouraged it's use when you have multiple documents of the same project.
While MS uses MDI for Word and Excel, they sort of "cheat" by adding extra task bar entries for every document to make them "seem" SDI when they're implemented with MDI. This is a function of the huge amount of legacy code in Office more than anything.
Apple's iLife apps are another example.
Think about this. Take a feature like Apple's Expose. This is VERY powerful, but virtually useless when tabbed browsing is used. You can't use Expose to quickly locate the document you want by sight because it's hidden behind other tabs.
MS didn't help develop the OASIS Document format. They participate in other OASIS working groups, but OASIS just adopted the OOo format wholesale without any real input from anyone else.
Actually, tabbed browsing actually VIOLATES pretty much every human interface guideline ever created. Yes, it's a powerful way to browse the web for certain kinds of people, but it's also amazingly un-intuitive, hides information from the OS and general user interface, and is confusing as hell to newbies.
This is why Apple disables tabbed browsing by default in Safari (you can enable it if you know what you're doing and want it).
I'm curious. What makes you think the OASIS standard is even worth supporting? Other than as an interoperability device to OOo that is.
I'm not suggesting that open standards shouldn't be the goal, but just because a standard exist doesn't make it a good one.
I've looked at the OASIS standard, and it seems pretty much just modeled after OOo, which means that any product that doesn't map to it 1:1 is going to break the standard.
The OASIS standard just adopted OOo's format, there was no working group that developed it from scratch to be a an open and extensible standard. That's what needs to be done, IMO.
If only humans worked that way. The biggest leaps forward in technology have been due to catalysts of some sort. Be it war, arms races, space races... oh, and porn;)
The problem is, of course, that it's not just the scientists that have to be on board, but the funding as well. Funding only comes when there is a serious problem that enough people want to address.
How exactly do you plan to get all the legislators, corporations, and stockholders to all agree to this massive R&D effort?
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "binary compatibility" in this context. Certainly calls to the kernel and C libraries will likely be compatible. However, when it comes to C++, object models frequently change, and so do signatures of libraries when changes are made. If they're going to base a new distro on, say GCC 4, then you can probably expect some binary incompatibiliites.
It's hard to put a finger on exact technologies that were invented due to the space program. Many of them were ideas that never would have seen fruition if the open mindedness of the space race hadn't come along looking for any ideas to get them there faster.
Computer technology was certainly improved by the space race, giving it the "killer app" it was looking for since the 50's. Missile balistics and all were good, but it needed more.
Certainly Propulsion technology... er.. umm.. for lack of a better word.. Skyrocketed. Fuel cell research, environment scrubbers, communications, plastics, and lots of other industries got serious boosts, in part because of government funded research and contracts.
In many ways we were way too immature to be going to the moon in the 60's, and in many other ways, we're way too mature to have not been to Mars by now.
I wouldn't say that the moon race got us "nothing". A ton of technology came from the space race. Sure, it may be been developed for other purposes, but surely not as quickly.
Can you imagine the technology that a "Mars race" could spawn? New kinds of environment control. New kinds of waste scrubbing technologies, new kinds of filtering and recycling, etc... It could be big.
None of the things you mention are related to the box model at all. The broken percentages might *SEEM* like it, but it's not related to the box model per se, but rather a global calculation.
No. IE7 will ship this fall. There will most likely be a new version that ships with Longhorn (and be backported to XP as well) a year later. Whether that's IE7 SP1, IE7.5 or IE8 is yet to be seen.
The fact taht IE7 has been set to ship for XP almost a year before Longhorn ships should tell you something.
Perhaps you can be a little more explicit. My guess is that your real problem was that you really WEREN'T in strict mode. I don't mean to belittle you, but i've never seen a case where the box model did not render correctly in stricts mode. Sure, there were other problems, but the box model itself was accurate (short of issues with rounding and the like).
Yeah, MS is shooting for "good enough" for IE7. But then IE7 is on a VERY short development schedule. It's scheduled to go gold this fall.
We can probably expect IE 7.5 or 8 about the time of Longhorn next year. It may even have a 7.5 sometime in the spring and 8 in the fall, though I think that's unlikely.
I fully expect that by the time Longhorn ships, IE will be as standards compbliant as Firefox is, though i've been known to be wrong before.
Umm.. sorry, no. No released version of Safari renders Acid2. I would also doubt that any released version of Konq does either. I don't know about iCab though.
Do you do a lot of corporate web application work?
In my experience Javascript is not used that often even. The real problem is ActiveX controls.
In the rush to move stand-alone VB apps to the web, many corporations demanded performance similar to VB, and thus tree controls, Access-like grid controls, and other kinds of ActiveX were used client-side to make the web appear more "application" like.
If there are javascript problems, it's more likely that it's simple DOM issues, where they're using things like document.all rather than more portable mechanisms.
Why should anyone believe what you say when you can't even get the OS right? There's no such thing as Windows 2000 Home.
If you can't even get a detail like that right, how can we believe all your other details are right?
The fact of the matter is, no such computer store (other than a small mom and pop) is going to even have a "policy" about just selling you the parts. They just won't do it. They won't even bother to try to charge you more money.
What you're getting is the runaround. They don't have the process in place to do what you want, and they sales droids have no script to go by, so they start making things up. When they run out of things to make up, they go to their manager who makes up different stuff.
The fact is, any store can sell you a PC without an OS. They just don't WANT to do it. It's like the vendors that tell you they're not allowed to sell you a PC with a full version of the OS on CD. They could if they wanted to, but they get a better margin if they don't. It's their choice.
You seem pretty naive. I bet you signed the petition to ban Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide because it causes soil erosion, makes up a major part of acid rain, and contributes to the death of 10's of thousands of people every year.
Here's a hint: All the article is doing is suggestion that money go from one source to another source. The same number of people would be employed. The same amount of money would make it back into the economy. All it's doing is robbing from peter to pay paul, or in this case robbing from Bill to pay Michael (Robertson) and others.
The point here is that new jobs should be created to feed the economy, not just transfering the money from one pocket to another.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that a working group HAD to be better, but single entity "standards" typically are not designed with anything other than the entity in mind.
Yes, i have far too many examples than i can list here, but here are a few:
No way to extend already defined elements. If, for example I want to extend an element to include a new type of border element or style, you can't... at least not without breaking the standard.
Foreign elements are not required to be preserved. This means that if I DO extend the standard, no other application is required to preserve any elements not in the standard. This makes it effectively useless to extend it at all, since loading it into any other word processor will likely cause your data or formatting to disappear.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. First, Internet Explorer does not put it's name as the first part of the title. It puts the title of the page there.
Second, Windows groups multiple windows of the same app together and click on the group icon expands them out to show more space.
Third, Alt-Tabbing throught your application list will also give you the full title as you alt-tab through it.
But, all that is irrelevant, since the point of my post totally went over your head. Tabbed browsing violates human interface guildelines from both MS *AND* Apple. This is because it operates in a way that is different from every other application. That doesn't mean it's not useful or powerful, but that it's in conflict with the established guildelines.
Basically, we're talking about MDI, which is something MS has had for years and years, but has for the last 10 years only encouraged it's use when you have multiple documents of the same project.
While MS uses MDI for Word and Excel, they sort of "cheat" by adding extra task bar entries for every document to make them "seem" SDI when they're implemented with MDI. This is a function of the huge amount of legacy code in Office more than anything.
Apple's iLife apps are another example.
Think about this. Take a feature like Apple's Expose. This is VERY powerful, but virtually useless when tabbed browsing is used. You can't use Expose to quickly locate the document you want by sight because it's hidden behind other tabs.
MS didn't help develop the OASIS Document format. They participate in other OASIS working groups, but OASIS just adopted the OOo format wholesale without any real input from anyone else.
Actually, tabbed browsing actually VIOLATES pretty much every human interface guideline ever created. Yes, it's a powerful way to browse the web for certain kinds of people, but it's also amazingly un-intuitive, hides information from the OS and general user interface, and is confusing as hell to newbies.
This is why Apple disables tabbed browsing by default in Safari (you can enable it if you know what you're doing and want it).
I'm curious. What makes you think the OASIS standard is even worth supporting? Other than as an interoperability device to OOo that is.
I'm not suggesting that open standards shouldn't be the goal, but just because a standard exist doesn't make it a good one.
I've looked at the OASIS standard, and it seems pretty much just modeled after OOo, which means that any product that doesn't map to it 1:1 is going to break the standard.
The OASIS standard just adopted OOo's format, there was no working group that developed it from scratch to be a an open and extensible standard. That's what needs to be done, IMO.
Uhh.. sorry. No. PC's had reset switches since some of the first clones appeared nearly a decade before Windows was anything more than a curiosity.
If only humans worked that way. The biggest leaps forward in technology have been due to catalysts of some sort. Be it war, arms races, space races... oh, and porn ;)
The problem is, of course, that it's not just the scientists that have to be on board, but the funding as well. Funding only comes when there is a serious problem that enough people want to address.
How exactly do you plan to get all the legislators, corporations, and stockholders to all agree to this massive R&D effort?
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "binary compatibility" in this context. Certainly calls to the kernel and C libraries will likely be compatible. However, when it comes to C++, object models frequently change, and so do signatures of libraries when changes are made. If they're going to base a new distro on, say GCC 4, then you can probably expect some binary incompatibiliites.
It's hard to put a finger on exact technologies that were invented due to the space program. Many of them were ideas that never would have seen fruition if the open mindedness of the space race hadn't come along looking for any ideas to get them there faster.
Computer technology was certainly improved by the space race, giving it the "killer app" it was looking for since the 50's. Missile balistics and all were good, but it needed more.
Certainly Propulsion technology... er.. umm.. for lack of a better word.. Skyrocketed. Fuel cell research, environment scrubbers, communications, plastics, and lots of other industries got serious boosts, in part because of government funded research and contracts.
In many ways we were way too immature to be going to the moon in the 60's, and in many other ways, we're way too mature to have not been to Mars by now.
I wouldn't say that the moon race got us "nothing". A ton of technology came from the space race. Sure, it may be been developed for other purposes, but surely not as quickly.
Can you imagine the technology that a "Mars race" could spawn? New kinds of environment control. New kinds of waste scrubbing technologies, new kinds of filtering and recycling, etc... It could be big.
I suppose it had nothing to do with the ABSOLUTELY CRAP code that Novell wrote those clients with.
Those clients SUCKED. They replaced key system files, were completely uninstallable, and drilled into the OS like termites in lumber yard.
It's a wonder the clients even worked in the first place, much less that they broke during upgrades.
None of the things you mention are related to the box model at all. The broken percentages might *SEEM* like it, but it's not related to the box model per se, but rather a global calculation.
No. IE7 will ship this fall. There will most likely be a new version that ships with Longhorn (and be backported to XP as well) a year later. Whether that's IE7 SP1, IE7.5 or IE8 is yet to be seen.
The fact taht IE7 has been set to ship for XP almost a year before Longhorn ships should tell you something.
Actually, there already *IS* a third mode. Mozilla implements an "almost standards" mode in addition to Quirks and Standard mode.
So, you think that a browser that automatically downloads a file without your knowledge is secure?
You're simply lucky that the file was targeting Windows and not OSX. This seems like a pretty bad security violation.
Perhaps you can be a little more explicit. My guess is that your real problem was that you really WEREN'T in strict mode. I don't mean to belittle you, but i've never seen a case where the box model did not render correctly in stricts mode. Sure, there were other problems, but the box model itself was accurate (short of issues with rounding and the like).
Umm.. 2005 to fause2097....
The box model has been fixed since IE6 was released 4 YEARS ago. The problem, of course is that it's only fixed in strict mode (not quirks mode).
If you want an accurate box model, make sure you're in strict mode.
The other issues (as the article states) have been fixed.
I don't know, is it too much to ask for you to read the fucking article (which answers your question)?
Yeah, MS is shooting for "good enough" for IE7. But then IE7 is on a VERY short development schedule. It's scheduled to go gold this fall.
We can probably expect IE 7.5 or 8 about the time of Longhorn next year. It may even have a 7.5 sometime in the spring and 8 in the fall, though I think that's unlikely.
I fully expect that by the time Longhorn ships, IE will be as standards compbliant as Firefox is, though i've been known to be wrong before.
I would have to wonder what DOESN'T work in this state rather than what DOES.
Umm.. sorry, no. No released version of Safari renders Acid2. I would also doubt that any released version of Konq does either. I don't know about iCab though.
Do you do a lot of corporate web application work?
In my experience Javascript is not used that often even. The real problem is ActiveX controls.
In the rush to move stand-alone VB apps to the web, many corporations demanded performance similar to VB, and thus tree controls, Access-like grid controls, and other kinds of ActiveX were used client-side to make the web appear more "application" like.
If there are javascript problems, it's more likely that it's simple DOM issues, where they're using things like document.all rather than more portable mechanisms.
Why should anyone believe what you say when you can't even get the OS right? There's no such thing as Windows 2000 Home.
If you can't even get a detail like that right, how can we believe all your other details are right?
The fact of the matter is, no such computer store (other than a small mom and pop) is going to even have a "policy" about just selling you the parts. They just won't do it. They won't even bother to try to charge you more money.
What you're getting is the runaround. They don't have the process in place to do what you want, and they sales droids have no script to go by, so they start making things up. When they run out of things to make up, they go to their manager who makes up different stuff.
The fact is, any store can sell you a PC without an OS. They just don't WANT to do it. It's like the vendors that tell you they're not allowed to sell you a PC with a full version of the OS on CD. They could if they wanted to, but they get a better margin if they don't. It's their choice.
That's not true at all. Dell, HP, and most major vendors sell systems with Linux on them.
You seem pretty naive. I bet you signed the petition to ban Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide because it causes soil erosion, makes up a major part of acid rain, and contributes to the death of 10's of thousands of people every year.
Here's a hint: All the article is doing is suggestion that money go from one source to another source. The same number of people would be employed. The same amount of money would make it back into the economy. All it's doing is robbing from peter to pay paul, or in this case robbing from Bill to pay Michael (Robertson) and others.
The point here is that new jobs should be created to feed the economy, not just transfering the money from one pocket to another.