[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Client-side XSLT. Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support

• From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• To: 'Benjamin Franz' <snowhare@n...>,'Max Dunn' <maxdunn@s...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:52:35 +0200

Aren't you guys watching the news ? There are many, many worse news
currently than bad IE6 XML support. Turn on your TV.

Regards,
Nicolas

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Benjamin Franz [mailto:snowhare@n...]
>Envoye : mardi 11 septembre 2001 16:33
>A : Max Dunn
>Cc : 'XML Everywhere'; xml-dev@l...
>Objet : RE: Client-side XSLT. Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
>
>
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Max Dunn wrote:
>> Someone else wrote:
>> > Pushing code on clients is attractive
>> > ("it's their fault, not mine"), but in reality it's
>> > a nightmare. Java on the browser failed because not
>> > even Netscape could keep up with whatever it was Sun
>> > was up to in any given month.
>>
>> The fact that Java on the browser failed is no argument against using
>> client-side code in a general sense, as there are plenty of other
>> examples where client-side code has become completely commonplace.
>> JavaScript in the browser, for example.
>
>The major reason it 'failed' in the browser is because MS has already
>squashed NS and didn't want to support it (Java) once it was 
>made clear in
>the courts that their _contractual license_ forbade them from 
>"Embrace and
>Extending" the language. It is hard to deploy a browser app 
>when the only
>major browser maker has shot the base language it runs in our 
>from under
>you. The 'keep up with Jones' argument is bogus because Sun distributes
>_for free_ the code needed to run the current JDK. Microsoft was could
>have included it in their browser at essentially no cost to itself (it
>just couldn't, ah, 'enhance' it, first). They even could have 
>continued to
>ship their _current_ 1.0.x version for the next seven years.
>
>The other argument about 'little grey boxes' is actually a symptom of
>_poor practice_. There is no reason you have to have a 'little 
>grey box'
>while the applet loads for tens of seconds. That is programmer and web
>page designer lazyness.  It is akin to 'white pages' that show nothing
>until _every_ image has loaded (or in MSIE keeps 're-laying 
>out' for 30 or
>40 seconds as images are loaded thus making the page 
>unreadable until it
>finished).
>
>Lastly, don't confuse 'it isn't on every web page' with 'unsuccessful'.
>CGI (and other 'active server' technologies) are not on every web page,
>either. Because the vast majority of web pages are generated 
>by people who
>have never written a line of code in their life. Java is a programming
>language. It is _never_ going to be as ubiquitous as markup 
>languages are.
>
>Different tool, different job.
>
>BTW: Java is projected to be the #1 used computer programming 
>language for
>new code by sometime next year. Not bad for an 'unsuccessful' language.
>
>-- 
>Benjamin Franz
>
>  Programs must be written for people to read, and only
>  incidentally for machines to execute.
>                             ---Abelson and Sussman
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

• Prev by Date: Re: Client-side XSLT. Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
• Next by Date: Xalan-Error.
• Previous by thread: RE: Client-side XSLT. Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
• Next by thread: RE: XML+SVG, XML+CSS, XML+XSL (was Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread