Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <tuot801td917ok rp9q3mfejco707i 5l09a@4ax.com>,
jrexon@newsguy. com says...[color=blue][color=green]
> >Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
> >coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.[/color]
> Anything else involves a level of discrimination.
> The www was not designed to discriminate, quite the contrary in fact.[/color]

The www has evolved from those days where part of it is now a virtually
free public form, and place to advertise for companies. This is in
addition to a place get get information, and a place to do ecommerce,
and a place to search and a place for brucie's porn, bla bla bla...

It is all of those things. And not all types of sites need to be
accessible by every visitor. That is not discrimination.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <108u2thr3f7tn6 6@corp.supernew s.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay. com.invalid says...[color=blue]
> Whitecrest wrote:[color=green]
> > I never said it would not "work"[/color]
> <quote>
> So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
> limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
> available.
> </quote>[/color]

Your context for the word work is "functionality" , to that, I never said
it would not work. You know that too, or you are unable to follow the
context of the topic.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Zak McGregor]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:04:47 +0200, Alan J. Flavell <"Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk>> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:
>[color=green]
>> But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
>> presentation,[/color]
>
> Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content
>[color=green]
>> because THAT is what drives people to their site,[/color]
>
> WHAT???[/color]

[snip]

Whitecrest never fails to bemuse. Same old lame old... ;-)

Ciao

Zak

--
=============== =============== =============== =============== ============
http://www.carfolio.com/ Searchable database of 10 000+ car specs
=============== =============== =============== =============== ============

[Stan McCann]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

Whitecrest wrote:[color=blue]
> Nope not at all, I more often than not use 100% standard compliant code
> that validates, and have great presentations. But not all sites can or
> want to do that.[/color]

You've got that wrong. All sites can. Not all want to.
[color=blue]
>
> Do you think standards mean diddley to:
> http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/
> (caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)[/color]

Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
tell me what I *need*. BS. If you can't create a site without the
*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
not a TV screen complete with commercials.
[color=blue]
>
> They did not care, the site does exactly what it was designed to do
> exactly the way it was designed to do it, and it "works" on most
> browsers IF you want it to.[/color]

All well and good for those playing on the web. When I'm looking for
information or products, I do not want to see your leadin, listen to
your choice of music or change my settings.[color=blue]
>
> They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
> does exactly what it is supposed to.[/color]

I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>"Look the same" is an expression with zero, zilch, nada, nothing of
>>value to it, unless you are suggesting that a vast majority of web
>>surfers are always using a minimum of two browsers to look at every web
>>site they find interesting.[/color]
>
>
> Explain that to the above site.[/color]

Obviously, those that created the above site care as much about me as I
about them.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>The real criteria to look at is...
>>1) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser A?
>> Is it fully usable in browser A?
>>2) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser B?
>> Is it fully usable in browser B?[/color]
>
>
> For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
> example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
> browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.[/color]

The site is irrelavent. Again, I haven't been there, just going on what
you said the site contains. I leave immediately when a site makes
demands that I must conform to their expectations making the site
irrelavent to me.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>"Look the same" is NOT a primary criteria in that process.[/color]
>
>
> We disagree sometimes.
>[/color]

You and I do a lot.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(

http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <408f1674$1@new s.zianet.com>, stan@surecann.c om says...[color=blue][color=green]
> > (caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)[/color]
> Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
> flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
> tell me what I *need*. BS....
> ...*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
> not a TV screen complete with commercials.[/color]

See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web.
[color=blue]
> All well and good for those playing on the web.[/color]

Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.
[color=blue]
> When I'm looking for
> information or products, I do not want to see your leadin, listen to
> your choice of music or change my settings.[/color]

Nor do I. But when I want to play, I do.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
> > does exactly what it is supposed to.[/color]
> I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?[/color]

Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Explain that to the above site.[/color]
> Obviously, those that created the above site care as much about me as I
> about them.[/color]

Well we can agree there.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
> > example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
> > browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.[/color]
>
> The site is irrelavent. Again, I haven't been there, just going on what
> you said the site contains. I leave immediately when a site makes
> demands that I must conform to their expectations making the site
> irrelavent to me.[/color]

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But others enjoy stuff
like this, and here's another clue, they can use the web to if they
want. You don't own it.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > We disagree sometimes.[/color]
> You and I do a lot.[/color]

News flash there....

--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:33:16 -0400, Whitecrest
<whitecrest@whi tecrestziopzap. com> declared in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,alt.html:
[color=blue]
> Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
> excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
> and guess what, they don't care.[/color]

I looked, with Flash and Javascript (and enabling popups, I might add),
and it certainly didn't excite me about the movie.

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Stan McCann]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

Whitecrest wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <408f1674$1@new s.zianet.com>, stan@surecann.c om says...
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>(caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)[/color]
>>
>>Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
>>flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
>>tell me what I *need*. BS....
>>...*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
>>not a TV screen complete with commercials.[/color]
>
>
> See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
> web.[/color]

You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?
[color=blue]
> Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
> information. You are making progress.[/color]

I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though. If I
did, I'd want it to work in any browser with the settings that I choose.
And not all of the privacy invading technologies that I have to
download and install to "make it work." If you want to make a game, do
so. If you want to write something to be displayed in a browser, use
the standards so it is useable in any browser with any personal settings
requiring no changes.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
>>>does exactly what it is supposed to.[/color]
>>
>>I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?[/color]
>
>
> Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
> excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
> and guess what, they don't care.[/color]

That's part of my point. Too many businesses these days have a "there's
10 more fools/suckers like you just around the corner" attitude towards
customers/potential customers. I just mailed (US Postal) a long
complaint to a major company with attitudes like that. The web site and
their phone "services" were totally useless in doing what I wanted to
do. I let them know that if there were an acceptable choice, I'd no
longer do business with them at all. It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.
[color=blue]
> That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But others enjoy stuff
> like this, and here's another clue, they can use the web to if they
> want. You don't own it.[/color]

I most certainly don't; with the exception of my little LAN portion of
it. But neither do the idiots that want to turn it into just another
idiot box like TV. I have the right to and will voice my opinion that
the garbage doesn't need to take over. We already have television for
the sheep masses. Must we allow this medium to be taken over by big
business too to serve yet more idiocy to the sheep masses? I think not.

I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
technology that isn't designed for it. Write the application for that
stuff and I'm sure there is a market. The "web" isn't necessarily HTML,
it is just the machinery and wiring that connects us all together. Let
the HTML applications (browsers) view HTML. Come up with something else
for all the flash commercials or put them on TV.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(

http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

/Whitecrest/:[color=blue]
> In article <c6maf3$dc6p6$1 @ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
> @netscape.net says...
>[color=green]
>> What about:
>> <object data="yourfile. swf" type="applicati on/x-shockwave-flash"
>> width="320" height="240">
>> <param name="movie" value="yourfile .swf">
>> Nah, no Flash.
>> </object>[/color]
>
> See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
> doesn't work.[/color]

Yes, I've read it and I've knew the solution even before.
[color=blue]
> Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
> then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
> object and all this other horse shit.[/color]

If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.

And after all the above construct works in IE, it is that IE is
stupid enough not to stream the content - it is all its fault, go
complain Microsoft. Moreover the streaming probably doesn't matter
because almost all the Flash applets I've seen wait to load
completely, showing some kind of load progress indicator, before
starting.

Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately. Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.
[color=blue]
> The embed tag is easy, and it works all the time with less code. It
> just doesn't follow the standards. But all the browsers handle it
> correctly.
>
> Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
> container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.[/color]

That's the erroneous thinking you got here - what does mean
"everywhere ", "all the browsers"? It is not standard and you've not
tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
would work with the next versions of those same applications.
[color=blue]
> And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
> you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that.[/color]

Another erroneous thinking - I don't code for NN4. I code with
standards but if I really need some functionality working in NN4 I
use only this part which works in NN4 and I don't use NN4
proprietary stuff to make it work with it.
[color=blue]
> Not to
> mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
> I have bigger problems that just standards.[/color]

What problems do you imply?

--
Stanimir

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <1mbbqj3ml3ob9$ .lrhdgciz2s59$. dlg@40tude.net> ,
webmaster@clark ecomputers.com. au says...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
> > excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
> > and guess what, they don't care.[/color]
> I looked, with Flash and Javascript (and enabling popups, I might add),
> and it certainly didn't excite me about the movie.[/color]

I was waiting to see who was going to say that.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <408f4279$1@new s.zianet.com>, stan@surecann.c om says...[color=blue][color=green]
> > See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
> > web.[/color]
> You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?[/color]

Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
> > information. You are making progress.[/color]
> I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though.[/color]

and that is significant because....
[color=blue]
> It's attitudes like yours that
> perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
> allowing business to do as they wish.[/color]

No, I show business how, and when to do it.
[color=blue]
> I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
> you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
> technology that isn't designed for it.[/color]

It is designed for it. You just don't like it.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <c6np2a$dnq1o$1 @ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says...[color=blue][color=green]
> > See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
> > doesn't work.[/color]
> Yes, I've read it and I've knew the solution even before.[color=green]
> > Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
> > then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
> > object and all this other horse shit.[/color]
> If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.[/color]

Not true all. We sell Flash components that companies plug into their
pages. Several hundred people (many form this forum) downloaded and use
the flash Jukebox I wrote. Many companies use swish with is a flash
compiler (for $49.00 from www.swishit.com) And quite a few don't see an
advantage when using the <embed> tag works great and on as many (or
more) than the standards work around. (It is not a solution, it is a
work around.)
[color=blue]
> And after all the above construct works in IE, it is that IE is
> stupid enough not to stream the content - it is all its fault, go
> complain Microsoft. Moreover the streaming probably doesn't matter
> because almost all the Flash applets I've seen wait to load
> completely, showing some kind of load progress indicator, before
> starting.[/color]

Makes no difference if the blame is on Microsoft or anyone else. You
can sit there and whine all day long about how it is Mircosoft's fault
for their crappy browser, but since that crappy browser owns 80%+ of the
browser world, bitching about it does nothing. Dealing with it does.
[color=blue]
> Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately.[/color]

I always say that. The problem is different people have different
levels of what appropriate means.
[color=blue]
> Flash
> is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
> for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
> a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
> mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
> no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.[/color]

I totally agree (well, you still have a limited view on what flash can
do but that is irrelevant to the topic). But it is not the fault of the
technology that people make shit out if it. People can make a shitty web
site that follow all the standards. So are the standards bad because
someone can abuse it?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
> > container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.[/color]
> That's the erroneous thinking you got here - what does mean
> "everywhere ", "all the browsers"...[/color]

You know exactly what it means.
[color=blue]
> It is not standard[/color]

Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.
[color=blue]
> and you've not
> tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
> know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
> amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
> would work with the next versions of those same applications.[/color]

nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
> > you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that.[/color]
> Another erroneous thinking - I don't code for NN4.[/color]

I said some of you.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Not to
> > mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
> > I have bigger problems that just standards.[/color]
> What problems do you imply?[/color]

Playing the dumb card eh? Don't belittle yourself by pretending you
don't know exactly what I am talking about.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

/Whitecrest/:[color=blue]
> In article <c6np2a$dnq1o$1 @ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
> @netscape.net says...
>[color=green]
>> If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.[/color]
>
> Not true all. We sell Flash components [...]
> [...]
> Makes no difference if the blame is on Microsoft or anyone else. You
> can sit there and whine all day long about how it is Mircosoft's fault
> for their crappy browser, but since that crappy browser owns 80%+ of the
> browser world, bitching about it does nothing. Dealing with it does.[/color]

Then, given the well known workaround for IE, I don't think you have
to invest much to sell your components with an additional "loader"
component.

And nobody expect you to just sit and blame Microsoft - go complain
them directly if your business is dependent on their products. You
could contact Macromedia, too.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It is not standard[/color]
>
> Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.[/color]

I've meant the way you embed your Flash objects in the HTML pages.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> and you've not
>> tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
>> know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
>> amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
>> would work with the next versions of those same applications.[/color]
>
> nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
> you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.[/color]

Why you think using non-standardized, deprecated long time now
techniques is better? While one could presume standards imply their
design have some future extensible use your approach is somewhat
just irrational.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> /Whitecrest/:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Not to
>>> mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
>>> I have bigger problems that just standards.[/color]
>>
>> What problems do you imply?[/color]
>
> Playing the dumb card eh? Don't belittle yourself by pretending you
> don't know exactly what I am talking about.[/color]

I can guess many things but I really don't know what you would mean.
I can't think of any reasonable ones, that's why I ask you?

--
Stanimir

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

Brian usenet3@julietr emblay.com.invalid wrote:[color=blue]
>
> <in debate with Whitecrest>
>
> You also, for some reason, keep repeating the lie that I claim that
> presentation is meaningless. You cannot present any message where I said
> any such thing for the obviouls reason that no such message exists.
>
> Anyone who is more honest need only look at other messages in the thread
> and see for themselves. Further comment is unwarranted.
>[/color]

once somebody has to start misrepresenting others and starts rewriting the
history of a debate in order to "win" an argument, I think the only
sensible thing we can do is killfile them...there's no point arguing with
Whitecrest any more, it's just going to make the signal to noise ratio on
the group worse...Whitecr est isn't arguing to learn or to establish the
truth, Whitecrest is clearly arguing purely as an ego boost...there's no
point in anyone else participating in that

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

Stanimir Stamenkov s7an10@netscape .net wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately. Flash
> is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
> for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
> a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
> mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
> no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.
>[/color]

it also allows interactivity within animation...it' s fabulous for creating
tutorials and "guided tours"...the problem with that is that it NEEDS
quality animators and they ate few and far between (at least on the web,
because the decent ones can generally make more money by doing TV
animation)

I LIKE Flash...I'd just like to see it used well more than 0.1% of the
time

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <c6o6mv$eblg3$1 @ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says...[color=blue]
> Then, given the well known workaround for IE, I don't think you have
> to invest much to sell your components with an additional "loader"
> component.[/color]

Why? The embed tag works like a charm, and if they search the web to
learn how to use a flash component, they will find the embed example.
[color=blue]
> And nobody expect you to just sit and blame Microsoft - go complain
> them directly if your business is dependent on their products. You
> could contact Macromedia, too.[/color]

Go for it.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.[/color]
> I've meant the way you embed your Flash objects in the HTML pages.[/color]

I do it the same way all the time. I am missing your point.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
> > you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Why you think using non-standardized, deprecated long time now
> techniques is better?[/color]

Because it is not a work around that requires additional effort to make
it work the same way on the same browsers.
[color=blue]
> While one could presume standards imply their
> design have some future extensible use your approach is somewhat
> just irrational.[/color]

As soon as a browser stops supporting the embed tag, I will change. It
will be a touch one to replace 3 lines of code, but I think we will be
able to do it. And I can blame it on the browser for stopping support o
the tag, and charge everyone to update their sites! Money maker all the
way around. (I am being facetious)

--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com