There's nothing wrong with Lynx, as the user is not expecting to see graphics or formatting. CSS degrades graceful in this case. The problem is with graphical browsers that have broken implementations of rendering standards that they supposedly support.
Why doesnt WSP create there own browser with features that they need?
Because it takes a long time to write a browser that can do things like CSS completely and correctly. But once it's done, the results are far superior.
A "standard" that changes ever two minutes (as the HTML standard, for example, has)
CSS1 has been ratified since 1996. MacIE5 was the first shipping browser to implement it properly.
I'd like to see a movement that was not only minimalistic, but blatantly rebelled against all the over complicated nuances of the "standards" -- all the idiocy added to HTML
WSP and the W3C agress with you. HTML4 is minimalist. The strict version doesn't permit font tags or other inline formatting. All the display is shifted to stylesheets.
Most sites provide a basic service. Some are calendars, some are schedules, some are guestbooks, some are news articles. Most of the web does not require DHTML, leave alone flash, plugins, or java. [...] Why start demanding that people upgrade to see the same crap they've been seeing for years now?
WSP's goal isn't to make the page flashier, it's about making it easier to manage. Nothing WSP is talking about involves Flash, Plug-Ins or Java. Those are not W3C standards.
There are two points to be made here:
[1] Standards like CSS and XML enable the web document to having meanful structure beyond display. This makes maintenance and reuse much more practical. This gives us a web document that can compare reasonably to a document generated from a word processor or page layout program, while using the flexibility that the internet provides.
[2] Web sites are no longer just flat technical manuals. Many of them are distributed applications. It's insane for each time you click a window widget to have to refresh the whole page just to update the display. This wastes bandwidth, CPU on the client and server, and makes software much harder to write. If we get DOM, ECMAScript and XML in gear, we can solve this problem.
Somebody is always going to find a way to use technology in an obnoxious way. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve things. If we believe that, then we might as well give up on the web.
Obvious ideas would be basing it on applets or Flash.
Except both these largerly make the concept of document secondary to presentation. This makes it rather hard for search engines to index the content or to reuse the content for different devices.
Here's what nobody seems to get about this topic: believe it or not, we're all on the same side. The problem is that human language is preventing comprehension, and some people are posting or moderating before understanding the material. The WSP is not encouraging people to upgrade their browsers so that web designers can go add a bunch of fancy graphics and glitz to their pages. They're trying to normalize the page creation process.
The most important standard to make sure everyone has is correct and complete CSS1/CSSP support. This solves a number of significant problems with web pages:
[1] CSS permits creation of lightweight, structure-centric documents. With regular HTML, you achieve formatting by using font tags, nested tables, single-pixel spacers, and other various hacks. This forces the content to be mixed with formatting, which makes the page very hard to parse, maintain and repurpose. CSS works to abstract the document from the display by enabling formatting through simple property lists that can be kept in a separate file. This is how it should be.
[2] CSS provides more predictable layout control With regular HTML, even if you use all sorts of hacks to get items arranged on a page, they always seem to end up in different places in various browsers. This is because HTML was not designed for such things. CSSP solves this by allowing the author to specify a point of original for page elements.
[3] CSS is scalable, and degrades graceful Anybody who is concerned with supporting multiple types of devices with the same content should be very interested in CSS. You can take the same document and apply a different stylesheet based on the environment. For example, one set of display rules for the browser, and one for a printed pages. Or, one for WebTV, one for a cell phone. Or one for regular browsers, one for audio browsers (for those without the benefit of sight). And since CSS abstracts style from content, you should be able to read static text just as well if you decide to not render the rules in the style sheet (or supply your own rules).
[4] CSS typographic control reduces the need for text graphics Text is often rendered as an image to preserve typography settings. CSS provides more typographic control, meaning lynx users will get all the text, and that download times will be shorter.
[5] CSS provides formatting automation Instead of wrapping a font tag around every page element, you can simply create a class for a certain type of content, which then formats all text that fits that description. CSS also uses inheritance to allow formatting of parent objects cascade onto child objects if you desire.
After taking all this account, it should be clear why CSS is so important, and why WSP is pushing for new browsers to be adopted for CSS use to become more widespread. Netscape 4.x supports CSS to some extent, but its implementation is so broken and incomplete, that designers end up using the older hacks anyway, which is the worst of both worlds.
And while CSS is the most important immediate standard, it's just part of the story. Once we have XML pages with correct DOM using ECMAScript, then we can stop this ridiculous business of refreshing the entire page everytime one element has to change. This wastes bandwidth, CPU power on both the client and server, and is disorienting for the user. But this requires standards support.
Believing that WSP is your enemy is pointless. You're giving the battle to Windows IE's proprietary web standards. People are going to want to make nice-looking, functional pages. The audience and the purpose of the web is much different than it was in 1992. It's not just about static technical manuals anymore. You can either try in vain to convince people to adopt to your aesthetic tastes, or you can provide them with an open, well-documented way to express theirs. Push for W3C standards, and you'll have your choice of browsers and platforms. Ignore the problem, and you'll wake up one day to find you can't view many sites on anything except Windows.
There are plenty of good browsers out there that meet WSP's recommendations. Mozilla, Opera and the newest version of IE should all do a satisfactory job. If you don't like Mozilla/Netscape 6's UI, find another browser that uses the same Gecko engine, but has a nicer app wrapped around it. There are several efforts underway in this vein. The biggest goal here is to get Netscape 4.x (and earlier versions of Explorer) off the market, because it makes web developers' lives a living hell. It's akin to having to support Windows 3.1.
If those folks making browsers put one out that has compelling enough features, those same folks WILL download and use it.
Yep, I know. The only problem is that people complain if browser makers add too many extraneous features. The MacIE team sort of split the difference by revamping the UI and making it more customizable. That got people downloading, whereas a rewritten rendering engine alone would not.
The UI is important stuff, and at this time I don't know of another browser that replaces NS 4.x to a reasonable extent.
I suppose this is a matter of opinion as I really don't like it much at all. There might be a little less choice on the Unix side of the world, but from what I can tell, IE, Opera, and the Gecko-based browsers look pretty reasonable for Windows users. Personally, I'm on OSX, and IE5 fits my needs nicely, and had some of the best standards support around.
Clean efficient browsers are needed BEFORE designers can take advantage of these new tools, not the other way around.
So, do you feel it is more important to have a "clean efficient" browser (which I assume means strong on standards, low on frills), or compelling features to get people to download, as you mention above? Either way, we can't really afford to wait around any longer. Either we push W3C standards now, or sit by and watch Microsoft take over with Active*.
Yes, CSS has been around a while. XML is just now getting itself solidified. Thing is though, nobody, and I mean nobody, has been able to produce a web browser that is 100% compliant with all that encompasses CSS1 and CSS2.
CSS2 really isn't that big of an issue right now. I'd settle for CSS1. MacIE5 was probably the first shipping browser to do 100% of CSS1, and Mozilla is probably right there as well. I don't know much about Opera, but hear it's good.
Is full compliance with CSS even possible? There's been a lot of folks throwing in a ton of time trying to get there, yet nobody is.
Yes, MacIE5 did 100% of CSS1, HTML4 and PNG. This was all over the web.
[HTML 3.x is heavy on inline commands to achieve formatting. This is totally backwards.] Yes it is, but it totally worked.
You and I must have been working with different browsers.:)
I found myself constantly battling to get things to work the way they were supposed to, especially anything in terms of alignment. And in the end, you had a very clunky, difficult to maintain page. CSSP elminates many of these issues.
It really should be the browsers leading the way, with designers following. The other way around is simply a chaotic mess.
I could not possibly disagree with this more. It was the browser makers that forked DHTML and created their own proprietary standards that caused all the nightmares we've had to endure over the past several years. The fact that some sites require IE is a direct result of this.
The WWW was defined by the first web-browsers. There has, in fact, been no truly useful addition to HTML since the first few years of development. It has only had gobs of useless and annoying eye-candy piled on top of (obscuring and interfering with) the content and navigation.
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't have sufficient information on the topic to make such a statement. If you'd bother to read anything at w3c.org, you'd realize that virtually all the work origanzation is doing revolves around focusing on structure of the document, and abstracting formatting from the structure.
Heavy use of Java, ActiveX, etc. are not what WSP is advocating. They're advocating using browsers that actually allow you to create modern documents with real structure, not a bunch of hacks. Pages created for more standards-compliant browsers can acutally be much smaller and more efficient than those using pre-1996 standards (yes, CSS was ratified in 1996).
Furthermore, the W3C standard approvals process is a public and open one. This isn't like Microsoft were they just invent something, slam it in a browser and don't tell anyone how to reproduce it elsewhere.
If I have be able to run NS6 or IE 5.5, that reduces the number of computers I have capable of web access from 3 to 1. (My parents' 486-100 and my brother's P120 laptop are suddenly useless, webwise. Sorry Mom!)
So out of IE 5.5, NS6 and Opera -- none will load on a 486? Are you sure about that?
NS 3 is lightweight
Ironically CSS (which Netscape 3 doesn't do at all) permits the use of much more lightweight pages with formatting shifted to simple CSS rules.
Other than ActiveX security updates, I honestly don't have a reason to move my browsing to IE, or any other browser for that matter.
And herein lies the discussion. The WSP is trying to point out that although you may not realize it, Netscape's 4.x rendering capabilities (particularly CSS) are horribly broken, which is causing people to continue to create very kludges pages with various workarounds and hacks. If we can get everyone onto a browser with solid W3C standards support (Mozilla, Opera, IE, etc.), than we can do away with things like 5-level deep tables and single-pixel spacers. If you don't like the Mozilla UI, download something that uses Gecko (the rendering engine) but uses native widgets.
Like it or not layout is important to lots of people. You're not going to change that. So we can either do it in a clean, efficient manner (CSS), or we can do it in a ugly, bulky manner (HTML + Font tags + Tables + etc).
Dreaming up standards faster than developers can implement them is just plain annoying.
This doesn't have any basis in fact. CSS1 was solidified at the end of 1996. Netscape 4 doesn't even come close to matching those standards from five years ago. Some people are already moving on to XML/CSS.
How about let's all get HTML 3.0 done correctly across browsers and platforms, THEN worry about the wonders of CSS and XML?
You're totally missing the point. HTML 3.x is not an interim step on your way to CSS/XML -- it's a totally different direction. HTML 3.x is heavy on inline commands to achieve formatting. This is totally backwards. HTML4 strict throws out a lot of the extraneous stuff from HTML 3.x. A web document should be just that -- a document. Leave the formatting to CSS, which is far more flexible.
People have lots of legitimate reasons for not upgrading. Their hardware may not support it. They may not be able to pay for it. They may be on a slow connection or wireless device. And they may need special accessibility features.
That sounds great, but the reality is you can't remain backwards compatible forever. There is plenty of linux software that requires newer version of the kernel or core libraries to run. Does anyone complain about that? WSP's approach may be a bit draconian, but I think the idea of an upgrade campaign is a good one.
Sites should be able to render fine with no JavaScript, no DOM
You may think you are pushing the "right" thing here, but there are implications that I don't think you don't realize. The JavaScript and DOM stuff is not just for fancy effects and little extras. It's about gradually getting away from this insane practice of refreshing the entire page anytime any element on it needs to change. It wastes gobs of bandwidth and is really disorienting.
Why are all BSD people blind to the fact that Apple and anybody else can steal all they want from software under the BSD license and contribute back little or nothing of any changes/ehancements they make?
Why are you blind to the fact that every Apple does with BSD is released under ASPL?
You have to be pretty sick to call "worldwide" a conference to be held at the San Jose Convention Center.
Developers from all over the world end up there. A notable number of attendees are typically Japanese. There are typically translation services offered, if memory serves.
Out of curiousity, why would I pay to go to a conference regarding Apple and FreeBSD? Number one, there will obviously be a major bias towards Apple software products (which I don't care for).
One of two reasons:
You're a Mac developer looking to take advantage of some BSD functionality
You want to see how Apple has used BSD in a consumer oriented operating system.
There is one reason Apple is using BSD for OSX. ITS FREE TO STEAL.
The reason Apple is using BSD is that it was part of NextStep. And how are they stealing it? All of the BSD stuff is redistributed under ASPL. I though everyone was relatively happy with this license now.
If Apple was interested in an "Open Source" or "Free" (libre or gratis) they would likely have chosen GNU/Linux because of its momentum and (justified) hype.
How is Darwin not open source?
Apple can no longer keep MacOS current and powerful - they saw themselves as quickly becoming the odd man out in the coming Linux jihad against M$ and decided they needed to align themselves with what will likely be the 'winner' 15 years from now.
That's interesting speculation, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality or history. At the end of 1996, Apple was looking to purchase a company to supply the foundation for their next-generation operating system. A lot of people though they were going to buy BeOS. They bought NextStep instead. I doubt this had anything to do with Linux.
What I would like to stress is that BSD is enabling Apple to exploit the 'grunt' coding done by thousands of BSD hackers - offering them a significant subsidy. OSX is the GUI, API and Object Model. BSD/Mach is the foundation.
I don't really see where you're going with this. I think most people reading this topic is aware of where BSD comes from. But to suggest that Apple is reselling free BSD software is just insane. OSX/Darwin uses BSD for the process/permissions model, threading, networking and the tools. This is not the majority of the code in the OS.
Avie Tevanian was one of the key architects of Mach, and he's Apple VP of Software Engineering. I think he has some right to use it if he chooses.
But I am not ready to accept that Apple isnt completely operating in their own best interests.
Apple is primarily operating in their own interests. They are not Debian (you know what I mean). They are a for-profit company that is releasing some open source software under a good license.
I think IBM is a better example of someone who 'gets it'.
Because they're contributing to Linux? Big deal. What's the point of Apple doing that? Linux makes sense on IBM's hardware, it really doesn't all that much on Apple's machines. IBM hasn't open sourced AIX, have they?
Apple is hoping to rape BSD to sell hardware.
Right, BSD is going to sell the hardware. That's it.
If anything, OSX is going to give an emormous boost to BSD concepts.
If all of OSX was "COMPLETELY" Free Software (and free to be completely ported to other architectures) I would be more enthusiastic
In which case OSX wouldn't even exist. The reason Apple could justify to the shareholders the idea of pouring three years of development time into creating OSX is because there is payoff at the end. If there was no potential for a substantial return on investment, then OSX wouldn't even exist, and Unix evolution would feel the effects.
Think about it. In many respects Apple is far more evil than Microsoft.
What a tactful thesis statement.
Apple wants control of the software and the hardware.
It's called user experience. This is the only way to do it right. Dell and Compaq are at the mercy of Microsoft's implemenation. There's only so much they can do to improve the computer since they can't really touch the OS. The hardware/software intergration is also why USB, FireWire and AirPort could be available instantly in new machines.
Steve Jobs has an open hostility to open source code
That's a fairly odd statement.
and he has never given anything back to the community that wasn't already there
Umm, what? QuickTime Streaming Server, NetInfo, and OpenPlay/NetSprocket spring to mind. I'm sure there are others.
He hijacked Mach, and he's trying to do the same with *BSD.
This doesn't make any sense. Avie Tevanian was one of the key people behind Mach at Carnegie Mellon. It was later donated to the FSF. Jobs hired Avie for next, where they used Mach. I don't know if the Next modifications to Mach were made available to the public at the time, but they are available now in Darwin.
The BSD comment doesn't make any sense. How could Apple be hijacking it? All of their BSD stuff is part of Darwin, and the most recent revision to the license appears to have appeased just about everyone.
The recommended physical RAM is 128MB. The reason for this is that the classic environment (to run non-native OS9 apps) is a major resource hog. If you're only going to be running Carbon, Cocoa, Java and BSD apps, then you can probably get away with 64MB.
all for eye-candy.
All the graphics engine is vectorized. The eye candy aspect of the visuals doesn't have much do at all with the recommended memory.
It's kind of like saying 'i'm going to sue this coke company because they stole the look and feel of my aluminum can that i stored my beverage in'.
Excellent example. I believe Coke actually won that one for trade dress. There was room for the consumer to be confused as to the maker of the product.
There are plenty of skinz who look like Windows but MS aren't a bunch of morons to sue.
That would take some serious balls. So much of the Windows 95-2000 UI (for example, the window control widgets) is taken directly from Apple/NeXT, that if Microsoft went after anybody, the rewards would actually belong to Apple. PARC looks practically nothing like Mac OS 9, but Windows 9x looks a hell of a lot like a NeXT/Mac hyrbrid.
Apple on the other hand just seem to look for an excuse to sue anyone.
Umm, Apple hasn't sued practically anyone in recent history. It sued eMachines and Daewoo because they were clearly trying to play off of the iMac's success by copying the industrial design. Microsoft doesn't really have any equivalent to the iMac fiasco. And furthermore, Microsoft doesn't need to sue anyone, it already owns everything, and it knows people will have to buy their products regardless.
Bottom line: if there's room for a consumer to be confused (remember, some think the CD drive is a coffee cup holder), then Apple has a case. This probably goes for Aqua as well.
Did anybody actually read the full story, and specifically, the comments of the President of Stardock (the guys who received the letter?):
Wardell emphasized that Apple has rights in this matter and that it has not been unprofessional in its approach or dealings with Stardock.
"Every time a company tries to enforce their rights, they are always made out to be bad guys," he said. "The fact is Apple is trying to innovate, and if you take away their incentive to innovate, it hurts everybody. I think it's good to see Apple, within limits, protect their rights."
"We very strongly believe Apple has rights to protect its intellectual property up until they infringe on the rights of others," Wardell said. "We need to make sure we protect the rights of the 'skinny' community, too."
Slashdot Mirror
Some users (like vision impaired -- or people using small handhelds) need to be able to get text only content.
CSS helps accessibility significantly if done right -- separating the content from the display. CSS2 has whole sections about accessibility.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
There's nothing wrong with Lynx, as the user is not expecting to see graphics or formatting. CSS degrades graceful in this case. The problem is with graphical browsers that have broken implementations of rendering standards that they supposedly support.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Why doesnt WSP create there own browser with features that they need?
Because it takes a long time to write a browser that can do things like CSS completely and correctly. But once it's done, the results are far superior.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
A "standard" that changes ever two minutes (as the HTML standard, for example, has)
CSS1 has been ratified since 1996. MacIE5 was the first shipping browser to implement it properly.
I'd like to see a movement that was not only minimalistic, but blatantly rebelled against all the over complicated nuances of the "standards" -- all the idiocy added to HTML
WSP and the W3C agress with you. HTML4 is minimalist. The strict version doesn't permit font tags or other inline formatting. All the display is shifted to stylesheets.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
WSP isn't adovcating Java or ActiveX. Read the material.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Most sites provide a basic service. Some are calendars, some are schedules, some are guestbooks, some are news articles. Most of the web does not require DHTML, leave alone flash, plugins, or java. [...] Why start demanding that people upgrade to see the same crap they've been seeing for years now?
WSP's goal isn't to make the page flashier, it's about making it easier to manage. Nothing WSP is talking about involves Flash, Plug-Ins or Java. Those are not W3C standards.
There are two points to be made here:
[1] Standards like CSS and XML enable the web document to having meanful structure beyond display. This makes maintenance and reuse much more practical. This gives us a web document that can compare reasonably to a document generated from a word processor or page layout program, while using the flexibility that the internet provides.
[2] Web sites are no longer just flat technical manuals. Many of them are distributed applications. It's insane for each time you click a window widget to have to refresh the whole page just to update the display. This wastes bandwidth, CPU on the client and server, and makes software much harder to write. If we get DOM, ECMAScript and XML in gear, we can solve this problem.
Somebody is always going to find a way to use technology in an obnoxious way. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve things. If we believe that, then we might as well give up on the web.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Obvious ideas would be basing it on applets or Flash.
Except both these largerly make the concept of document secondary to presentation. This makes it rather hard for search engines to index the content or to reuse the content for different devices.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Too many times I've opened a site that uses all the fancy features of IE5/NS6 and actually contains no really useful information.
WSP isn't advocating glitz. They're adovacting standards so that documents can be more efficient and reusable.
Content and usability are king. If you can find a compelling reason to use DHTML, then use it. Otherwise, forget it, stick to basic code.
They're not pushing for animation. They're pushing for normalized documents.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Here's what nobody seems to get about this topic: believe it or not, we're all on the same side. The problem is that human language is preventing comprehension, and some people are posting or moderating before understanding the material. The WSP is not encouraging people to upgrade their browsers so that web designers can go add a bunch of fancy graphics and glitz to their pages. They're trying to normalize the page creation process.
The most important standard to make sure everyone has is correct and complete CSS1/CSSP support. This solves a number of significant problems with web pages:
[1] CSS permits creation of lightweight, structure-centric documents. With regular HTML, you achieve formatting by using font tags, nested tables, single-pixel spacers, and other various hacks. This forces the content to be mixed with formatting, which makes the page very hard to parse, maintain and repurpose. CSS works to abstract the document from the display by enabling formatting through simple property lists that can be kept in a separate file. This is how it should be.
[2] CSS provides more predictable layout control With regular HTML, even if you use all sorts of hacks to get items arranged on a page, they always seem to end up in different places in various browsers. This is because HTML was not designed for such things. CSSP solves this by allowing the author to specify a point of original for page elements.
[3] CSS is scalable, and degrades graceful Anybody who is concerned with supporting multiple types of devices with the same content should be very interested in CSS. You can take the same document and apply a different stylesheet based on the environment. For example, one set of display rules for the browser, and one for a printed pages. Or, one for WebTV, one for a cell phone. Or one for regular browsers, one for audio browsers (for those without the benefit of sight). And since CSS abstracts style from content, you should be able to read static text just as well if you decide to not render the rules in the style sheet (or supply your own rules).
[4] CSS typographic control reduces the need for text graphics Text is often rendered as an image to preserve typography settings. CSS provides more typographic control, meaning lynx users will get all the text, and that download times will be shorter.
[5] CSS provides formatting automation Instead of wrapping a font tag around every page element, you can simply create a class for a certain type of content, which then formats all text that fits that description. CSS also uses inheritance to allow formatting of parent objects cascade onto child objects if you desire.
After taking all this account, it should be clear why CSS is so important, and why WSP is pushing for new browsers to be adopted for CSS use to become more widespread. Netscape 4.x supports CSS to some extent, but its implementation is so broken and incomplete, that designers end up using the older hacks anyway, which is the worst of both worlds.
And while CSS is the most important immediate standard, it's just part of the story. Once we have XML pages with correct DOM using ECMAScript, then we can stop this ridiculous business of refreshing the entire page everytime one element has to change. This wastes bandwidth, CPU power on both the client and server, and is disorienting for the user. But this requires standards support.
Believing that WSP is your enemy is pointless. You're giving the battle to Windows IE's proprietary web standards. People are going to want to make nice-looking, functional pages. The audience and the purpose of the web is much different than it was in 1992. It's not just about static technical manuals anymore. You can either try in vain to convince people to adopt to your aesthetic tastes, or you can provide them with an open, well-documented way to express theirs. Push for W3C standards, and you'll have your choice of browsers and platforms. Ignore the problem, and you'll wake up one day to find you can't view many sites on anything except Windows.
There are plenty of good browsers out there that meet WSP's recommendations. Mozilla, Opera and the newest version of IE should all do a satisfactory job. If you don't like Mozilla/Netscape 6's UI, find another browser that uses the same Gecko engine, but has a nicer app wrapped around it. There are several efforts underway in this vein. The biggest goal here is to get Netscape 4.x (and earlier versions of Explorer) off the market, because it makes web developers' lives a living hell. It's akin to having to support Windows 3.1.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
If those folks making browsers put one out that has compelling enough features, those same folks WILL download and use it.
:)
Yep, I know. The only problem is that people complain if browser makers add too many extraneous features. The MacIE team sort of split the difference by revamping the UI and making it more customizable. That got people downloading, whereas a rewritten rendering engine alone would not.
The UI is important stuff, and at this time I don't know of another browser that replaces NS 4.x to a reasonable extent.
I suppose this is a matter of opinion as I really don't like it much at all. There might be a little less choice on the Unix side of the world, but from what I can tell, IE, Opera, and the Gecko-based browsers look pretty reasonable for Windows users. Personally, I'm on OSX, and IE5 fits my needs nicely, and had some of the best standards support around.
Clean efficient browsers are needed BEFORE designers can take advantage of these new tools, not the other way around.
So, do you feel it is more important to have a "clean efficient" browser (which I assume means strong on standards, low on frills), or compelling features to get people to download, as you mention above? Either way, we can't really afford to wait around any longer. Either we push W3C standards now, or sit by and watch Microsoft take over with Active*.
Yes, CSS has been around a while. XML is just now getting itself solidified. Thing is though, nobody, and I mean nobody, has been able to produce a web browser that is 100% compliant with all that encompasses CSS1 and CSS2.
CSS2 really isn't that big of an issue right now. I'd settle for CSS1. MacIE5 was probably the first shipping browser to do 100% of CSS1, and Mozilla is probably right there as well. I don't know much about Opera, but hear it's good.
Is full compliance with CSS even possible? There's been a lot of folks throwing in a ton of time trying to get there, yet nobody is.
Yes, MacIE5 did 100% of CSS1, HTML4 and PNG. This was all over the web.
[HTML 3.x is heavy on inline commands to achieve formatting. This is totally backwards.] Yes it is, but it totally worked.
You and I must have been working with different browsers.
I found myself constantly battling to get things to work the way they were supposed to, especially anything in terms of alignment. And in the end, you had a very clunky, difficult to maintain page. CSSP elminates many of these issues.
It really should be the browsers leading the way, with designers following. The other way around is simply a chaotic mess.
I could not possibly disagree with this more. It was the browser makers that forked DHTML and created their own proprietary standards that caused all the nightmares we've had to endure over the past several years. The fact that some sites require IE is a direct result of this.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
The WWW was defined by the first web-browsers. There has, in fact, been no truly useful addition to HTML since the first few years of development. It has only had gobs of useless and annoying eye-candy piled on top of (obscuring and interfering with) the content and navigation.
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't have sufficient information on the topic to make such a statement. If you'd bother to read anything at w3c.org, you'd realize that virtually all the work origanzation is doing revolves around focusing on structure of the document, and abstracting formatting from the structure.
Heavy use of Java, ActiveX, etc. are not what WSP is advocating. They're advocating using browsers that actually allow you to create modern documents with real structure, not a bunch of hacks. Pages created for more standards-compliant browsers can acutally be much smaller and more efficient than those using pre-1996 standards (yes, CSS was ratified in 1996).
Furthermore, the W3C standard approvals process is a public and open one. This isn't like Microsoft were they just invent something, slam it in a browser and don't tell anyone how to reproduce it elsewhere.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
If I have be able to run NS6 or IE 5.5, that reduces the number of computers I have capable of web access from 3 to 1. (My parents' 486-100 and my brother's P120 laptop are suddenly useless, webwise. Sorry Mom!)
So out of IE 5.5, NS6 and Opera -- none will load on a 486? Are you sure about that?
NS 3 is lightweight
Ironically CSS (which Netscape 3 doesn't do at all) permits the use of much more lightweight pages with formatting shifted to simple CSS rules.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Other than ActiveX security updates, I honestly don't have a reason to move my browsing to IE, or any other browser for that matter.
And herein lies the discussion. The WSP is trying to point out that although you may not realize it, Netscape's 4.x rendering capabilities (particularly CSS) are horribly broken, which is causing people to continue to create very kludges pages with various workarounds and hacks. If we can get everyone onto a browser with solid W3C standards support (Mozilla, Opera, IE, etc.), than we can do away with things like 5-level deep tables and single-pixel spacers. If you don't like the Mozilla UI, download something that uses Gecko (the rendering engine) but uses native widgets.
Like it or not layout is important to lots of people. You're not going to change that. So we can either do it in a clean, efficient manner (CSS), or we can do it in a ugly, bulky manner (HTML + Font tags + Tables + etc).
Dreaming up standards faster than developers can implement them is just plain annoying.
This doesn't have any basis in fact. CSS1 was solidified at the end of 1996. Netscape 4 doesn't even come close to matching those standards from five years ago. Some people are already moving on to XML/CSS.
How about let's all get HTML 3.0 done correctly across browsers and platforms, THEN worry about the wonders of CSS and XML?
You're totally missing the point. HTML 3.x is not an interim step on your way to CSS/XML -- it's a totally different direction. HTML 3.x is heavy on inline commands to achieve formatting. This is totally backwards. HTML4 strict throws out a lot of the extraneous stuff from HTML 3.x. A web document should be just that -- a document. Leave the formatting to CSS, which is far more flexible.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
People have lots of legitimate reasons for not upgrading. Their hardware may not support it. They may not be able to pay for it. They may be on a slow connection or wireless device. And they may need special accessibility features.
That sounds great, but the reality is you can't remain backwards compatible forever. There is plenty of linux software that requires newer version of the kernel or core libraries to run. Does anyone complain about that? WSP's approach may be a bit draconian, but I think the idea of an upgrade campaign is a good one.
Sites should be able to render fine with no JavaScript, no DOM
You may think you are pushing the "right" thing here, but there are implications that I don't think you don't realize. The JavaScript and DOM stuff is not just for fancy effects and little extras. It's about gradually getting away from this insane practice of refreshing the entire page anytime any element on it needs to change. It wastes gobs of bandwidth and is really disorienting.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Why are all BSD people blind to the fact that Apple and anybody else can steal all they want from software under the BSD license and contribute back little or nothing of any changes/ehancements they make?
Why are you blind to the fact that every Apple does with BSD is released under ASPL?
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
You have to be pretty sick to call "worldwide" a conference to be held at the San Jose Convention Center.
Developers from all over the world end up there. A notable number of attendees are typically Japanese. There are typically translation services offered, if memory serves.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Next question? When will Apple be truely and totally free?
When it doesn't have shareholders.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
One of two reasons:
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
There is one reason Apple is using BSD for OSX. ITS FREE TO STEAL.
The reason Apple is using BSD is that it was part of NextStep. And how are they stealing it? All of the BSD stuff is redistributed under ASPL. I though everyone was relatively happy with this license now.
If Apple was interested in an "Open Source" or "Free" (libre or gratis) they would likely have chosen GNU/Linux because of its momentum and (justified) hype.
How is Darwin not open source?
Apple can no longer keep MacOS current and powerful - they saw themselves as quickly becoming the odd man out in the coming Linux jihad against M$ and decided they needed to align themselves with what will likely be the 'winner' 15 years from now.
That's interesting speculation, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality or history. At the end of 1996, Apple was looking to purchase a company to supply the foundation for their next-generation operating system. A lot of people though they were going to buy BeOS. They bought NextStep instead. I doubt this had anything to do with Linux.
What I would like to stress is that BSD is enabling Apple to exploit the 'grunt' coding done by thousands of BSD hackers - offering them a significant subsidy. OSX is the GUI, API and Object Model. BSD/Mach is the foundation.
I don't really see where you're going with this. I think most people reading this topic is aware of where BSD comes from. But to suggest that Apple is reselling free BSD software is just insane. OSX/Darwin uses BSD for the process/permissions model, threading, networking and the tools. This is not the majority of the code in the OS.
Avie Tevanian was one of the key architects of Mach, and he's Apple VP of Software Engineering. I think he has some right to use it if he chooses.
But I am not ready to accept that Apple isnt completely operating in their own best interests.
Apple is primarily operating in their own interests. They are not Debian (you know what I mean). They are a for-profit company that is releasing some open source software under a good license.
I think IBM is a better example of someone who 'gets it'.
Because they're contributing to Linux? Big deal. What's the point of Apple doing that? Linux makes sense on IBM's hardware, it really doesn't all that much on Apple's machines. IBM hasn't open sourced AIX, have they?
Apple is hoping to rape BSD to sell hardware.
Right, BSD is going to sell the hardware. That's it.
If anything, OSX is going to give an emormous boost to BSD concepts.
If all of OSX was "COMPLETELY" Free Software (and free to be completely ported to other architectures) I would be more enthusiastic
In which case OSX wouldn't even exist. The reason Apple could justify to the shareholders the idea of pouring three years of development time into creating OSX is because there is payoff at the end. If there was no potential for a substantial return on investment, then OSX wouldn't even exist, and Unix evolution would feel the effects.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Think about it. In many respects Apple is far more evil than Microsoft.
What a tactful thesis statement.
Apple wants control of the software and the hardware.
It's called user experience. This is the only way to do it right. Dell and Compaq are at the mercy of Microsoft's implemenation. There's only so much they can do to improve the computer since they can't really touch the OS. The hardware/software intergration is also why USB, FireWire and AirPort could be available instantly in new machines.
Steve Jobs has an open hostility to open source code
That's a fairly odd statement.
and he has never given anything back to the community that wasn't already there
Umm, what? QuickTime Streaming Server, NetInfo, and OpenPlay/NetSprocket spring to mind. I'm sure there are others.
He hijacked Mach, and he's trying to do the same with *BSD.
This doesn't make any sense. Avie Tevanian was one of the key people behind Mach at Carnegie Mellon. It was later donated to the FSF. Jobs hired Avie for next, where they used Mach. I don't know if the Next modifications to Mach were made available to the public at the time, but they are available now in Darwin.
The BSD comment doesn't make any sense. How could Apple be hijacking it? All of their BSD stuff is part of Darwin, and the most recent revision to the license appears to have appeased just about everyone.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Have you seen the system requirements for it?
The recommended physical RAM is 128MB. The reason for this is that the classic environment (to run non-native OS9 apps) is a major resource hog. If you're only going to be running Carbon, Cocoa, Java and BSD apps, then you can probably get away with 64MB.
all for eye-candy.
All the graphics engine is vectorized. The eye candy aspect of the visuals doesn't have much do at all with the recommended memory.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
It basically gives you a 20 second break whenever you open one of your MacOS 9 apps. I love it!
The compatibility environment only launches once per session, thank you.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
It's kind of like saying 'i'm going to sue this coke company because they stole the look and feel of my aluminum can that i stored my beverage in'.
Excellent example. I believe Coke actually won that one for trade dress. There was room for the consumer to be confused as to the maker of the product.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
There are plenty of skinz who look like Windows but MS aren't a bunch of morons to sue.
That would take some serious balls. So much of the Windows 95-2000 UI (for example, the window control widgets) is taken directly from Apple/NeXT, that if Microsoft went after anybody, the rewards would actually belong to Apple. PARC looks practically nothing like Mac OS 9, but Windows 9x looks a hell of a lot like a NeXT/Mac hyrbrid.
Apple on the other hand just seem to look for an excuse to sue anyone.
Umm, Apple hasn't sued practically anyone in recent history. It sued eMachines and Daewoo because they were clearly trying to play off of the iMac's success by copying the industrial design. Microsoft doesn't really have any equivalent to the iMac fiasco. And furthermore, Microsoft doesn't need to sue anyone, it already owns everything, and it knows people will have to buy their products regardless.
Bottom line: if there's room for a consumer to be confused (remember, some think the CD drive is a coffee cup holder), then Apple has a case. This probably goes for Aqua as well.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Did anybody actually read the full story, and specifically, the comments of the President of Stardock (the guys who received the letter?):
Wardell emphasized that Apple has rights in this matter and that it has not been unprofessional in its approach or dealings with Stardock.
"Every time a company tries to enforce their rights, they are always made out to be bad guys," he said. "The fact is Apple is trying to innovate, and if you take away their incentive to innovate, it hurts everybody. I think it's good to see Apple, within limits, protect their rights."
"We very strongly believe Apple has rights to protect its intellectual property up until they infringe on the rights of others," Wardell said. "We need to make sure we protect the rights of the 'skinny' community, too."
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu