Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Although this seems cool, it seems silly and almost pointless if it is only supported in IE. I don't dislike or like Microsoft products (or the company itself). However, the web wasn't designed for such product-specific functionality in mind. Ask, Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the web), and I'm sure he would say that the original intent was for sharing of information through non-proprietary means. Although these HTML Component technologies seem great for an intrAnet based on MS tech. etc., do they also support mobile devices, voice browsers, web projectors, etc.? It seems this technology was thought up by a marketing person and implemented by programmers. Could you imagine the costs involved in undoing this technology on an entiresite, if an enterprise chooses to no longer support IE as their browser of choice? Just my opinion, but it seems too much like putting every egg into one basket to me.
Oops! I forgot that the article mentioned that Microsoft is pushing it to be a web standard. hehe Nevermind.
... if this enhancement relies on WSH, I can't see it making much headway. In fact, what's the point of pushing for a standard when it needs Windows Scripting Host to work anyway??? I'll be avoiding it, homogenous environment or not.
This is another example of the MS-centricity that much of builder.com has become. It seems that a large percentage of the articles are IE/MS-specific.
This is not what the web is about. Web designers are striving to make their pages browser-independent. Now we have to make our pages readable by cell phones, PDS's and screen readers. Please stick to articles dealing with web standards and teach us how to do that better.
This is not what the web is about. Web designers are striving to make their pages browser-independent. Now we have to make our pages readable by cell phones, PDS's and screen readers. Please stick to articles dealing with web standards and teach us how to do that better.
These articles are useful for people such as myself, who perform a majority of their work on intranets. With companies making the common-sense decision to stick with one browser internally (and given that many go with the Windows pre-installed IE) these articles do have justification.
Also, as stated in the article, this could become a standard in the future, so getting to know the details now just makes good professional sense. The concept behind it is sound and *useful*, so I am crossing my fingers it does make it into the next round of official specs.
PS : I agree that internet-based sites should be written to current W3C standards and any web designer who doesn't understand why should lose their "License To Code" (hmm .... now there's an idea!).
Also, as stated in the article, this could become a standard in the future, so getting to know the details now just makes good professional sense. The concept behind it is sound and *useful*, so I am crossing my fingers it does make it into the next round of official specs.
PS : I agree that internet-based sites should be written to current W3C standards and any web designer who doesn't understand why should lose their "License To Code" (hmm .... now there's an idea!).
"Not what the web is about" is a lofty ideal - but the difference between .com and .edu was never clearer to me.
from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp (ASP, naturally...) shows IE versions at 94% with netscapes and opera at 3%.
i run a professional corporate site - my visitors browser stats are similar.
does the responsible developer choose - "not what the web is about" OR "get the job done efficiently"?
sorry - my world is obviously much different than yours...
Rue
from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp (ASP, naturally...) shows IE versions at 94% with netscapes and opera at 3%.
i run a professional corporate site - my visitors browser stats are similar.
does the responsible developer choose - "not what the web is about" OR "get the job done efficiently"?
sorry - my world is obviously much different than yours...
Rue
MS-centric? Well maybe it's because other browsers do not offer this type of functionality yet. Where would we be if Netscape didn't come up with its "proprietary" Javascript language?
I recently completed an intranet solution in which IE Javascript played an essential role in the final solution. Won't go in the specifics, but some of IE's functionality helps in the web vs. software battle.
Are you arguing that all software should be rewritten as web applications these days since they are not accessible and not conformant to W3C specs? This is madness since things just can't be done yet with the limited standards we have.
If the standards have what you require, don't use any of the innovative extensions MS or other browser makers have to offer. But don't be surprised if others are using these to help meet their customer's needs better.
I recently completed an intranet solution in which IE Javascript played an essential role in the final solution. Won't go in the specifics, but some of IE's functionality helps in the web vs. software battle.
Are you arguing that all software should be rewritten as web applications these days since they are not accessible and not conformant to W3C specs? This is madness since things just can't be done yet with the limited standards we have.
If the standards have what you require, don't use any of the innovative extensions MS or other browser makers have to offer. But don't be surprised if others are using these to help meet their customer's needs better.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
