Home > Archive > Cobol > August 2007 > field validation (was Re: COBOL/DB2 Date edit question)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
field validation (was Re: COBOL/DB2 Date edit question)
|
|
| Frank Swarbrick 2007-08-13, 6:55 pm |
| >>> On 8/12/2007 at 8:59 PM, in message
< oMednRMwtNq6VCLbnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast
.com>, LX-i<lxi0007@netscape.net>
wrote:
>
> There are benefits to stored procedures - but the RDBMS runtime would
> still have been charged to our program, as the thread that started the
> whole mess would have been part of the program's charged time. :)
> There's another school of thought that stored procedures tie one to a
> particular database, and that a program-based solution is preferable to
> obtain DB independence. Of course, we've had enough debate in here as
> of late... ;)
>
> Personally, I believe that call has to be made for each system, by
> analyzing what it's going to do. On our Unisys mainframe-based COBOL
> system, putting stored procedures in their proprietary RDMS format would
>
> probably make sense. If it gets ported to another architecture, they're
>
> likely going to have different ways of validating dates. On the other
> hand, on my websites I'm working on now with PHP 5, I'm using PHP Data
> Objects (PDO), which should allow me to extract the data access from the
>
> underlying database. (Not that I plan on running it on anything but
> MySQL; but, I'll have the option.)
This brings to mind an interesting issue that we've been struggling with for
years at our shop. This issue being, where does input validation belong?
Prior to the mid-1990s all of our data input to the mainframe was your good
ol' 3270 green screens. For better or for worse, presentation logic and
business logic were implemented in the same CICS program. Data validation
was hard coded directly in to the same CICS program.
We then started utilizing some distributed (Windows) applications to perform
some of these functions. The same (if slightly modified) CICS programs
still existed on the back end and were utilized by the distributed
applications to actually get the data from there to here (the mainframe).
All of the existing data validation remained in the CICS programs, but much
of the same logic was also put in to the distributed application.
One of the main reasons this was done was because the distributed
application has all those wonderful modern things such as drop-down lists,
radio buttons, etc. In order to present the proper widgets (or whatever
they're called) to the end user the distributed application must, of course,
know what those valid values are. Additionally, with those types of
applications the users are used to knowing pretty much immediately of they
have selected a valid option. They don't want to go through all of the
effort of entering data, then at the end pressing enter and finally getting
back a message "such and such a value is invalid for this account type".
Just this year we implemented a project to 'web enable' a lot of our CSR
screens. Again we ended up duplicating a lot of the
edits/validations/whatever you want to call them. In some situations where
the logic is fairly complex and the relevant data resides on the mainframe
we will let things 'pass through' to be edited on the mainframe, but that's
fairly rare.
Another issue we come upon, even if we wanted to pass the edits through to
the mainframe, is that different applications sometimes allow for different
edits. Here's a real example... If an ATM card is ordered for a customer
who is a minor (under 18) there is a requirement that the order be approved
by an officer. So the order is put in to a 'pending approval' queue. If,
however, the card is ordered as part of setting up a new account through the
new accounts system (a distributed application) then the approval is *not*
required. So I had to add logic to my CICS program to be able to
distinguish between the transaction being initiated directly (via a regular
3270 terminal session) and same transaction being initiated via a
distributed application (which actually still uses a regular 3270 terminal
session, but a 'psuedo signon' process is done by the distributed
application that lets the CICS program know that it's, well, a distributed
application).
Anyway, there are other cases where the 'end' application is more likely to
know what edits need to be in place, and to 'end' applications may not have
the same edits. So putting the edits on the mainframe just makes things
worse.
Then again, most of the 'end' applications would have the *same* edits, and
so we end up with a lot of duplicate logic. Even if the logic is somehow
combined, in, say, a Java object, that object cannot be utilized by a
regular Windows application, and certainly not by a mainframe application
(or mainframe OS does not support Java).
In the end we do what we have to do to make things work. But no one is
really happy with it.
I don't know that we're going to change our direction at this point, but I
am curious about other's experiences.
Frank
| |
| Clark F Morris 2007-08-13, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:01 -0600, "Frank Swarbrick"
<Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
>< oMednRMwtNq6VCLbnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast
.com>, LX-i<lxi0007@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>This brings to mind an interesting issue that we've been struggling with for
>years at our shop. This issue being, where does input validation belong?
>
>Prior to the mid-1990s all of our data input to the mainframe was your good
>ol' 3270 green screens. For better or for worse, presentation logic and
>business logic were implemented in the same CICS program. Data validation
>was hard coded directly in to the same CICS program.
>
>We then started utilizing some distributed (Windows) applications to perform
>some of these functions. The same (if slightly modified) CICS programs
>still existed on the back end and were utilized by the distributed
>applications to actually get the data from there to here (the mainframe).
>All of the existing data validation remained in the CICS programs, but much
>of the same logic was also put in to the distributed application.
>
>One of the main reasons this was done was because the distributed
>application has all those wonderful modern things such as drop-down lists,
>radio buttons, etc. In order to present the proper widgets (or whatever
>they're called) to the end user the distributed application must, of course,
>know what those valid values are. Additionally, with those types of
>applications the users are used to knowing pretty much immediately of they
>have selected a valid option. They don't want to go through all of the
>effort of entering data, then at the end pressing enter and finally getting
>back a message "such and such a value is invalid for this account type".
>
>Just this year we implemented a project to 'web enable' a lot of our CSR
>screens. Again we ended up duplicating a lot of the
>edits/validations/whatever you want to call them. In some situations where
>the logic is fairly complex and the relevant data resides on the mainframe
>we will let things 'pass through' to be edited on the mainframe, but that's
>fairly rare.
>
>Another issue we come upon, even if we wanted to pass the edits through to
>the mainframe, is that different applications sometimes allow for different
>edits. Here's a real example... If an ATM card is ordered for a customer
>who is a minor (under 18) there is a requirement that the order be approved
>by an officer. So the order is put in to a 'pending approval' queue. If,
>however, the card is ordered as part of setting up a new account through the
>new accounts system (a distributed application) then the approval is *not*
>required. So I had to add logic to my CICS program to be able to
>distinguish between the transaction being initiated directly (via a regular
>3270 terminal session) and same transaction being initiated via a
>distributed application (which actually still uses a regular 3270 terminal
>session, but a 'psuedo signon' process is done by the distributed
>application that lets the CICS program know that it's, well, a distributed
>application).
>
>Anyway, there are other cases where the 'end' application is more likely to
>know what edits need to be in place, and to 'end' applications may not have
>the same edits. So putting the edits on the mainframe just makes things
>worse.
>
>Then again, most of the 'end' applications would have the *same* edits, and
>so we end up with a lot of duplicate logic. Even if the logic is somehow
>combined, in, say, a Java object, that object cannot be utilized by a
>regular Windows application, and certainly not by a mainframe application
>(or mainframe OS does not support Java).
Java exists for both z/OS (unfortunately for you, probably not for
z/VSE) and Windows.
>
>In the end we do what we have to do to make things work. But no one is
>really happy with it.
>
>I don't know that we're going to change our direction at this point, but I
>am curious about other's experiences.
>
>Frank
| |
| Frank Swarbrick 2007-08-13, 6:55 pm |
| >>> On 8/13/2007 at 2:03 PM, in message
<q5e1c3dfemm1rrgrtahacviachdce8dmn4@4ax.com>, Clark F
Morris<cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:01 -0600, "Frank Swarbrick"
> <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
> and
>
> Java exists for both z/OS (unfortunately for you, probably not for
> z/VSE) and Windows.
Sorry, that was a typo. I mean "our mainframe OS" (which is VSE and does
not support Java), not "or mainframe OS".
I know Windows (of course!) supports Java. I have no idea if the Windows
guys would want to call Java routines. As a one off thing, maybe. As a
general rule? I'm guessing not.
Frank
| |
|
| In article <46C03FC9.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com>,
Frank Swarbrick <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
[snip]
>This brings to mind an interesting issue that we've been struggling with for
>years at our shop. This issue being, where does input validation belong?
The users may say 'Data validation belongs where it causes response-time
to be fastest.'
The programmers may say 'Data validation belongs where it causes changing
code to be the easiest.'
Both of these may be considered as vectors; data validation, then belongs
at the point where these two vectors intersect with a third one, said
third vector being voiced by the one who says 'I sign the checks for the
system; data validation belongs where it makes me smile the most.'
DD
| |
|
| Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>
> This brings to mind an interesting issue that we've been struggling with for
> years at our shop. This issue being, where does input validation belong?
Our system had it in several places. The date/time procedure I've
mentioned before (P315) had validation on every routine in it. We'd
have programs that validated screen input, then passed it to a batch
program that re-validates the same input. While that may seem wasteful,
it is of note that the batch program could be run without going through
the screen.
When we put a GUI front-end, there were even more edits that happen on
it, before the page is even submitted! But, again, there are ways to
script things that don't go through the GUI, so a program can't assume
that the input has been validated before.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-14, 7:55 am |
| X-Trace: individual.net euUOM5/quj2bA9PI+stD8Qhp8/SN186M+farNT3rkAIv0fNF5m
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4lVis8iAOcObCUFv7hShPojCMqo=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Bytes: 7082
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:166652
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
news:46C08338.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com...
> <q5e1c3dfemm1rrgrtahacviachdce8dmn4@4ax.com>, Clark F
> Morris<cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Sorry, that was a typo. I mean "our mainframe OS" (which is VSE and does
> not support Java), not "or mainframe OS".
>
> I know Windows (of course!) supports Java. I have no idea if the Windows
> guys would want to call Java routines. As a one off thing, maybe. As a
> general rule? I'm guessing not.
>
I wouldn't hesitate to call Java if the function I needed was available in a
Java bean. (It can be easily brokered through CORBA.)
The way the question is formulated shows the difference in concepts.
You are still thinking in languages and source code; I think in functions
needed, and simply don't care what it's written in. (that's why I have less
resistance to stored DB procedures and triggers; it is just another
language. To me the encapsulation of data and the validation of it, makes it
worth the effort.)
This comes down to component based solutions as a general approach. I have
applications with components written in VB, OO COBOL, PowerCOBOL, and even
one or two subroutines written in Standard (Fujitsu NetCOBOL) COBOL, and C#,
some of which I wrote and some of which I didn't, (some of which I don't
even have source code for, and don't need it) all playing nicely together
(sometimes even in the same user window) to give a single, seamless, user
experience.
Under Windows this was good, but under DotNET it is superb.
Interop services lets me call unmanaged code into my C# solution, and so I
get to use all of the legacy components I need to, while re-wrapping them
for a modern desktop (or Web) look and feel.
All new development is in C# as it lets stuff run on Windows or Linux (or
anywhere else that supports DotNET or Mono) without requiring a different
compiler. (A bit like Java really... :-), but, having used both Java and C#,
I have come to prefer C#)
Fortunately, I adopted an n-tier layered approach many years ago so there is
no problem with different looking windows or themes. (Legacy presentation
layer components are simply re-written in C#) This is about 20% of my
legacy, so the remaining 80% that has no visual interface, can be easily
re-used. I COULD re-use some of the Windows (PowerCOBOL, especially) stuff,
but it just looks old-fashioned and dated.)
I'm currently revisiting an application I wrote 7 years ago for converting
ISAM and VSAM/KSDS datasets into RDB. It is being enhanced to generate DDL
for various RDBMS, and the whole thing is being re-wrapped into a single
"Management Console" that lets you control the whole process from a single
point. After refactoring PowerCOBOL and OO COBOL I was amazed to have the
main function (analyzes COBOL source SELECT statements and FD/01 record
definitions, then generates an ACCESS DB (really for documentation, but also
for quick initial testing) and DDL for the RDB of your choice), run
perfectly on the first attempt in the new DotNET environment, using the C#
environment handling, control, and user interface.
When I first wrote this system from scratch it took 5 months; the upgrade
and migration to DotNET will take 3/4 w s with many original components
being re-used without change, just "glued" together differently...New
facilities are also being added. There is a possibility I may be asked to
write some tools to automate the exisiting COBOL code conversion to RDB
also. Any of you who have manually converted code and data to RDB will know
that this is not to be undertaken lightly. It isn't just a matter of
converting ISAM verbs to SQL; these are different paradigms, and OCCURS,
REDEFINES, and group fields in the ISAM definitions have no place on the new
RDB. It all has to be handled.
Once the RDB has been defined and normalized, it needs to be loaded. I can
generate COBOL modules to do that (the client is a COBOL shop) and that was
what led to my question regarding Batch Compiling Fujitsu COBOL (see
different thread here in CLC)
I'm now thinking about NOT generating COBOL but simply generating DDL to
load the data instead. (Of course I still have to read it somehow, and it
is in the ISAM system which is not readily open to tools other than COBOL.)
The point is that component based systems pay off in ways you can't even
imagine when you build them. I had no idea 7 years ago that I would need to
upgrade and enhance this system in some major ways, 7 years down the track.
Now I'm being paid to do so, and thanking my lucky stars it is not a
complete rewrite...in fact, I can focus on the new facilities rather than
having to worry about complete redesigns and rebuilds of the old ones.
Encapsulation rules; objects are what matters; procedural source is as
relevant as Latin.
(Of course there are enclaves where Latin is still important... Vatican City
springs to mind... :-))
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-14, 7:55 am |
|
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:iO2dnbe7vsZjpVzbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>
> Our system had it in several places. The date/time procedure I've
> mentioned before (P315) had validation on every routine in it. We'd have
> programs that validated screen input, then passed it to a batch program
> that re-validates the same input. While that may seem wasteful, it is of
> note that the batch program could be run without going through the screen.
>
> When we put a GUI front-end, there were even more edits that happen on it,
> before the page is even submitted! But, again, there are ways to script
> things that don't go through the GUI, so a program can't assume that the
> input has been validated before.
>
All of which makes "encapsulated back end validation" (stored procedures and
triggers) just that bit more appealing.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Michael Mattias 2007-08-14, 7:55 am |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:f9qtvl$sdd$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
> The users may say 'Data validation belongs where it causes response-time
> to be fastest.'
>
> The programmers may say 'Data validation belongs where it causes changing
> code to be the easiest.'
Striking a balance between features, performance and maitainability is a
long-running battle; rightly so, and rightly should and will continue.
I think there's also some kind of aphorism on this, something like "speed,
features, maintainability: pick two" or something like that.
MCM
| |
| HeyBub 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
| LX-i wrote:
> Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>
> Our system had it in several places. The date/time procedure I've
> mentioned before (P315) had validation on every routine in it. We'd
> have programs that validated screen input, then passed it to a batch
> program that re-validates the same input. While that may seem
> wasteful, it is of note that the batch program could be run without
> going through the screen.
>
> When we put a GUI front-end, there were even more edits that happen on
> it, before the page is even submitted! But, again, there are ways to
> script things that don't go through the GUI, so a program can't assume
> that the input has been validated before.
You can't have too much data validation. Even, as you say, when the data had
presumbably already been validated.
One wonders how much code was recently written to check previously checked
dates for Y2K...
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:26:01 -0600 "Frank Swarbrick"
<Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
:>Prior to the mid-1990s all of our data input to the mainframe was your good
:>ol' 3270 green screens. For better or for worse, presentation logic and
:>business logic were implemented in the same CICS program. Data validation
:>was hard coded directly in to the same CICS program.
:>We then started utilizing some distributed (Windows) applications to perform
:>some of these functions. The same (if slightly modified) CICS programs
:>still existed on the back end and were utilized by the distributed
:>applications to actually get the data from there to here (the mainframe).
:>All of the existing data validation remained in the CICS programs, but much
:>of the same logic was also put in to the distributed application.
There are two kinds of validations, syntax and appropriateness.
An amount must be numeric (syntax) and be within a certain range
(appropriate).
February 30th fails on syntax, while Mar 23rd may fail due to being in the
wrong quarter, or wrong day of the w.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:57:43 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>There are two kinds of validations, syntax and appropriateness.
>
>An amount must be numeric (syntax) and be within a certain range
>(appropriate).
>
>February 30th fails on syntax, while Mar 23rd may fail due to being in the
>wrong quarter, or wrong day of the w.
Quite often I see syntax checking of a date that is really a waste of
resources - when it is followed by appropriateness checking that will
fail it anyway.
Part of this is our CoBOL background, where we check to see if a
denominator is zero before we do division, because that is easier than
handling the error if it is zero. (Even if we expect that the number
isn't zero). All the checking ahead of time every time uses up
resources that aren't needed with good exception handling.
An other edit is the inappropriate edit - when I enter my 9-digit zip
code on a web page and the program tells me to enter my zip code
correctly. This is especially irritating when the database can
accept any sized postal code (handling foreign postal codes), but
notices that I'm from the U.S., so I must not know my 9-digit zip
code.
Why are they counting digits? Because editing is Right and Proper?
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:v9f3c3pksoedvbjlg8st6ve52o6b7o1bov@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:57:43 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
> <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Why are they counting digits? Because editing is Right and Proper?
No, Howard, editing string length for input fields on web pages is a
valuable and accepted line of defence against SQL inection attacks. (It is
only one measure, but a very important one)
It is a pain (I hate writing it), but in today's world it is a necessary
evil.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| In article <h1gwi.873$924.548@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:f9qtvl$sdd$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>Striking a balance between features, performance and maitainability is a
>long-running battle; rightly so, and rightly should and will continue.
I was trying to be even less specific than that, Mr Mattias, and
attempting to liken the difficulty to that age-old question of 'what
constitutes a Logical Unit of Work?'
Where something 'belongs', I'd say, depends on the criteria one uses to
judge 'belonging'... and, as you point out, different groups have
differing values that they use to weight criteria.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:22:49 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>No, Howard, editing string length for input fields on web pages is a
>valuable and accepted line of defence against SQL inection attacks. (It is
>only one measure, but a very important one)
>
>It is a pain (I hate writing it), but in today's world it is a necessary
>evil.
Then allow me to enter my complete Zip code. Are 9 digit postal
codes more dangerous to enter than are 5 digit postal codes?
| |
| Frank Swarbrick 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
| >>> On 8/13/2007 at 6:45 PM, in message <f9qtvl$sdd$1@reader1.panix.com>,
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <46C03FC9.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com>,
> Frank Swarbrick <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> for
>
> The users may say 'Data validation belongs where it causes response-time
> to be fastest.'
>
> The programmers may say 'Data validation belongs where it causes
> changing
> code to be the easiest.'
>
> Both of these may be considered as vectors; data validation, then
> belongs
> at the point where these two vectors intersect with a third one, said
> third vector being voiced by the one who says 'I sign the checks for the
>
> system; data validation belongs where it makes me smile the most.'
In my shop the signers of checks often defer to the technical experts to
make these decisions.
Surprising, I know.
Frank
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-14, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:kgi3c3hhkvnto090oq9tsa97509uunq5g2@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:22:49 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Then allow me to enter my complete Zip code. Are 9 digit postal
> codes more dangerous to enter than are 5 digit postal codes?
Allowing a longer input where a shorter one would do, is in principle,
higher risk.
I don't know about your Zip codes, specifically, so I can't comment on that.
I do know that allowing excessive length ('excessive' being 'more than
required') on a web input field is taking a risk that can be eliminated if
you don't allow it. Certainly, I can't think of much I can do with 4
characters of SQL, but there are smarter people than me out there (maybe
tokenized...I dunno.) Why take the risk?
I would add that if you think the use of a web page is stupid, most Web
Masters would be pleased to have your input (I like it when people complain
about my pages because I fix them and the complaints diminish... Then the
next site I build, I have all that user experience :-))
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Clark F Morris 2007-08-14, 9:55 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:45:45 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:kgi3c3hhkvnto090oq9tsa97509uunq5g2@
4ax.com...
>
>Allowing a longer input where a shorter one would do, is in principle,
>higher risk.
>
>I don't know about your Zip codes, specifically, so I can't comment on that.
>
>I do know that allowing excessive length ('excessive' being 'more than
>required') on a web input field is taking a risk that can be eliminated if
>you don't allow it. Certainly, I can't think of much I can do with 4
>characters of SQL, but there are smarter people than me out there (maybe
>tokenized...I dunno.) Why take the risk?
Zip codes in the US were originally 5 digits. They later added a 4
digit suffix to allow more precise sorting. I thing that what Howard
is referring to is a an application where the 9 digit zip code or is
used by the back end of the application yet the person who designed
the application only allowed entry of the 5 digit code. All fields
should be checked to be sure they fit (Old 3270 green screens did it
automatically) but fit should match overall reality.
>
>I would add that if you think the use of a web page is stupid, most Web
>Masters would be pleased to have your input (I like it when people complain
>about my pages because I fix them and the complaints diminish... Then the
>next site I build, I have all that user experience :-))
>
>Pete.
| |
|
| Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
> February 30th fails on syntax,
Interestingly enough, February 30th actually passes in JavaScript! (At
least in IE 6...)
if (isNaN(parseInt(Date.parse("2007-02-30")))) {
alert("Invalid Date!");
}
else {
alert("You may proceed...");
}
"Date.parse" creates a date from a string, "parseInt" creates an integer
from its argument, and "isNaN" means "is Not a Number". This is how I
used to validate dates, but once I figured out it let this through, I
had to write a different routine. (Never underestimate the
bone-headedness of the user.)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:45:45 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>I would add that if you think the use of a web page is stupid, most Web
>Masters would be pleased to have your input (I like it when people complain
>about my pages because I fix them and the complaints diminish... Then the
>next site I build, I have all that user experience :-))
I have complained to Web masters, and the evidence is overwhelming
that your attitude is rare.
For instance, the way most common response to bugs found is that they
won't support anything except I.E. They keep track, and people who
use their web page are overwhelming I.E. (Because nothing else works,
and many browsers lie anyway). Besides, more customers mean more
work.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:1k26c3lntms024jrmj85omqui0ii5a1n91@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:45:45 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I have complained to Web masters, and the evidence is overwhelming
> that your attitude is rare.
I'm sorry to hear that, Howard. Obviously, I talk to people who are like
me... :-)
>
> For instance, the way most common response to bugs found is that they
> won't support anything except I.E.
Ah, now that's not quite the same thing.
I don't think people who don't build web sites realise how REALLY hard it is
to make everything work across Browsers.
It is getting better with the advent of more server based code and dynamic
generation of pages (servers are getting smart enough to generate the right
code for whatever the Client Browser (given some encouragement from web
developers)), but it is still a huge amount of work.
I'm currently working on a major site (although it's had to move to the
"pending" queue while I complete the database migration tools I'm doing for
a client.)
I was pretty thrilled with it, as it is the most ambitious thing I've done
with web programming, so far. It is all ASP.NET and C# with themed headers
and footers, alternate dynamic master pages and almost no JavaScript
(everything is coded in C# on code-behind pages that run on the server. It
looks pretty  (I'm biased, of course...:-)) but imagine my horror when I
found it rendered completely differently, not just on different Browsers,
but on different versions of IE as well!
The "experience" on IE7 was a dream; on IE6, it was the occasional snore,
IE5 it was more like restless sleep, and on Firefox it was a nightmare :-).
I never would have known if I hadn't got people to try testing it, and they
sent me some screen shots that showed themes not rendered, pages misaligned,
text fonts that were simply ugly, colors not rendering correctly, and some
minor logic bugs in processes for using the Web Service and various
downloads.
I resolved to fix it (it isn't live yet, so it was more the challenge of it
than any particular desire to meet customer demand...:-)) I spent three full
days just finding out what I COULD do and getting it is close as possible
across Browsers. I have tested it with FireFox, Netscape and IE5 thru IE7
and it is much better (although it is still definitely best when seen with
IE7). But this was several days of intensive work over long hours, and for
very little real gain. It still looks exactly the same in IE7 as it did
before; I might just as well have done nothing... :-)
Now, if someone was paying me to develop this site I simply couldn't spend
that amount of time on the "Cross Browser" problem.. Server stats showed
that for the brief time I let people access it, 93% were using IE. (Previous
sites I've done have reported over 85%). It just isn't viable to develop for
anything other than IE. It's a pity, and I wish it weren't so, but that is
the reality of it. As long as the page renders in other Browsers, that's the
best I can do...(If you see flat, lifeless, buttons and scraggly fonts in
odd colours, and input fields that don't tab correctly, as long as the page
is aligned correctly and is visible, that's all I can guarantee...)
> They keep track, and people who
> use their web page are overwhelming I.E. (Because nothing else works,
> and many browsers lie anyway). Besides, more customers mean more
> work.
Yes, IE has the market place pretty tied up. To be fair, it is much better
than it was, but it is also more resource hungry (I'm running a 2GB notebook
and I've seen IE7 using over 250MB...sometimes it freezes, although it has
never crashed the system (so far...).
So, the bottom line is, Howard, that complaints about problems in other
Browsers are just relegated to the bottom of the heap, unless they are
really drastic; things like windows not floating properly, animations not
activating, sound files refusing, video timing out, are all not going to get
fixed because it just isn't economic. In three days I could add new, revenue
generating, functionality that at least 85% of the traffic can enjoy without
problem... the people who would be paying me want maximum bang for their
buck.
I am using software and platforms that cost serious money and it STILL isn't
easy to get Cross Browser compatibility. Between Visual Studio and
Dreamweaver it is possible to emulate every type of Browser and screen size.
I've done it. It makes no difference. Looks fine in emulation, look at it
with the real thing, and it isn't...
So now I'm only guaranteeing support for IE...
And that was where we came in... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Ah, now that's not quite the same thing.
>
>I don't think people who don't build web sites realise how REALLY hard it is
>to make everything work across Browsers.
There are de jure and de facto standards. If the web code was
designed to work with the de jure standards, it should work with
minimal changes with all of the browsers that claim to follow those
standards. Which is every browser except one.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>So now I'm only guaranteeing support for IE...
>
>And that was where we came in... :-)
Good thing I don't need to be your customer. You will find that your
stats will back up your assertion that those who can't use your web
site won't use your web site.
Now, I have used Opera with its default setting to say it is IE, and I
use Firefox and Safari. But I won't use sites that demand Active-X
be enabled. My wife's iMac doesn't even have it installed.
Being excluded from web sites isn't a matter of indifference to me and
for lots of people who don't use IE. It's a matter of anger.
| |
| Richard 2007-08-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Aug 16, 5:01 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> I don't think people who don't build web sites realise how REALLY hard it is
> to make everything work across Browsers.
It is really easy to do so, just follow the standards that are set by
W3. Oh, wait, then IE fails.
Of course if you try to use all the Windows specific cruft that can be
exploited by spyware and such then, yes, it is really hard.
> The "experience" on IE7 was a dream; on IE6, it was the occasional snore,
> IE5 it was more like restless sleep, and on Firefox it was a nightmare :-).
That is most likely because you were using IEisms and Windowsisms,
just like a good Microsoftee should.
> Now, if someone was paying me to develop this site I simply couldn't spend
> that amount of time on the "Cross Browser" problem.. Server stats showed
> that for the brief time I let people access it, 93% were using IE. (Previous
> sites I've done have reported over 85%).
That depends on what you are measuring, it may be because anyone using
another browser sees the first page as crap and wanders off without
making a couple of dozen hits.
> So, the bottom line is, Howard, that complaints about problems in other
> Browsers are just relegated to the bottom of the heap, unless they are
> really drastic; things like windows not floating properly, animations not
> activating, sound files refusing, video timing out, are all not going to get
> fixed because it just isn't economic.
I have Firefox with add-ons that block flash, kill animations, refuse
sound, block pop-ups and advertising sites, and won't run scripts
(unless I specifically allow). Naturally Active-X is completely out.
You may design sites that look like flash adverts on TV, but I won't
watch those. Animations and flash are distracting, 'arty' backgrounds
and colours can make sites unreadable.
I also have an addon 'Web Developer', with one click I can turn off
'all styles' and get the information content as black text on white
background that I can read comfortably.
> In three days I could add new, revenue
> generating, functionality that at least 85% of the traffic can enjoy without
> problem... the people who would be paying me want maximum bang for their
> buck.
You say 'revenue generating'. That usually means adverts flashing at
me. Am I supposed to 'enjoy' those ?
Some sites are made like the DVDs that won't skip the trailers, or TV
recorders that won't skip over adverts. Just don't go there/buy them,
or get a browser/player that bypasses the crap.
> I am using software and platforms that cost serious money and it STILL isn't
> easy to get Cross Browser compatibility. Between Visual Studio and
> Dreamweaver it is possible to emulate every type of Browser and screen size.
> I've done it. It makes no difference. Looks fine in emulation, look at it
> with the real thing, and it isn't...
That may be deliberate, especially the 'Visual Studio'.
> So now I'm only guaranteeing support for IE...
If it is advertising, pop-ups, flash, animations, sound then that is
excellent, please ensure that _nothing_ shows for Firefox.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:1k26c3lntms024jrmj85omqui0ii5a1n91@
4ax.com...
>
> Ah, now that's not quite the same thing.
>
> I don't think people who don't build web sites realise how REALLY hard it is
> to make everything work across Browsers.
It is actually easier now - especially now that IE 7 supports more of
the W3's standards. :)
> It is getting better with the advent of more server based code and dynamic
> generation of pages (servers are getting smart enough to generate the right
> code for whatever the Client Browser (given some encouragement from web
> developers)), but it is still a huge amount of work.
I don't think that's the answer. With the separation of content and
style, the style should be constant, and the content dynamic.
> I was pretty thrilled with it, as it is the most ambitious thing I've done
> with web programming, so far. It is all ASP.NET and C# with themed headers
> and footers, alternate dynamic master pages and almost no JavaScript
> (everything is coded in C# on code-behind pages that run on the server. It
> looks pretty (I'm biased, of course...:-)) but imagine my horror when I
> found it rendered completely differently, not just on different Browsers,
> but on different versions of IE as well!
What are you using to make the client side dynamic? AJAX? Or does it
post-back for things that would normally be done in JavaScript?
> The "experience" on IE7 was a dream; on IE6, it was the occasional snore,
> IE5 it was more like restless sleep, and on Firefox it was a nightmare :-).
IE 7 is pretty good - it's the best IE I've ever seen. IE 6, well -
that's what we're mandated to use at work. At least until this fall,
when the Air Force's Standard Desktop Configuration (SDC) 2.0 drops -
Vista, IE 7, and Office 2007 for all!
IE 5? Who cares? :) Since Ford started producing the Thunderbird and
the Mustang, do they still produce Model T's?
Firefox is not too bad. Of course, I write my code by hand, and develop
in Firefox. I've had similar experiences developing on Firefox and then
looking at the site in IE!
> I resolved to fix it (it isn't live yet, so it was more the challenge of it
> than any particular desire to meet customer demand...:-)) I spent three full
> days just finding out what I COULD do and getting it is close as possible
> across Browsers. I have tested it with FireFox, Netscape and IE5 thru IE7
> and it is much better (although it is still definitely best when seen with
> IE7). But this was several days of intensive work over long hours, and for
> very little real gain. It still looks exactly the same in IE7 as it did
> before; I might just as well have done nothing... :-)
No - bringing your site within standards isn't useless. :) Think of it
as future-proofing. Lots of sites that worked great with IE 6 simply
didn't work with IE 7 - and that's the same browser, just different
versions! I foresee better support for W3 standards coming in future
versions of browsers, not worse; developing to a given standard can help
alleviate surprises.
> I am using software and platforms that cost serious money and it STILL isn't
> easy to get Cross Browser compatibility. Between Visual Studio and
> Dreamweaver it is possible to emulate every type of Browser and screen size.
> I've done it. It makes no difference. Looks fine in emulation, look at it
> with the real thing, and it isn't...
Sometimes Notepad can be your friend! :) heh...
I'm not knocking what you've done. I've done the same thing (mostly in
reverse, but I know where you're coming from). What I found really
helped was looking up the CSS stuff on the W3C's web site, and putting
most of my styles in CSS. I know in the .NET environment, it's not
quite as easy (although I think most of the controls have CssClass as
one of their properties) or "automatic", but I've found that if I do it
that way, it usually doesn't take much to make it work in both Firefox
and IE.
I'd be happy to take a quick gander at some of the more problematic
areas if you'd like. :) You know where to find me...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:8fi6c39v6ltegtd71t8ekjpasocgbpnhbg@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Good thing I don't need to be your customer. You will find that your
> stats will back up your assertion that those who can't use your web
> site won't use your web site.
>
> Now, I have used Opera with its default setting to say it is IE, and I
> use Firefox and Safari. But I won't use sites that demand Active-X
> be enabled. My wife's iMac doesn't even have it installed.
>
> Being excluded from web sites isn't a matter of indifference to me and
> for lots of people who don't use IE. It's a matter of anger.
It's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot... no-one is excluding you
except yourself.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:06:46 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>It's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot... no-one is excluding you
>except yourself.
Ahh, blame the (non) customer.
But check around. Lots of people are  because web sites want us
to use Windows, I.E., and active-X. I am reporting facts that I
have observed on newsgroups, and have observed in my workplace.
If a company doesn't mind prospective customers being and not
being able to use their sites - it doesn't matter whether the fault is
those prospective customers' failure to conform to Microsoft's failure
to conform. They won't be customers.
In fact, they will be anti-customers - sharing their anger with
others.
Now companies are free to decide that IE is the de facto standard, and
those using de jure standard browsers aren't worthwhile. That is
their right. But designing around de jure standards isn't that
expensive and is more inclusive. That's worth money. (It may be
that you can't use MS designed tools though).
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:UfCdnQBwRflDIl7bnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> It is actually easier now - especially now that IE 7 supports more of the
> W3's standards. :)
>
>
> I don't think that's the answer. With the separation of content and
> style, the style should be constant, and the content dynamic.
Hmmm... yes and no. If I can serve dynamic content, why shouldn't I do so
with dynamic style? (I can, of course, as long as I get themes and CSS
right... ;-))
>
>
> What are you using to make the client side dynamic? AJAX? Or does it
> post-back for things that would normally be done in JavaScript?
It just missed AJAX. I have downloaded the AJAX tutorials and am about 40%
through them. I simply haven't got time (or inclination) to go back and
change it. There is some posting back as nearly all code is running on the
server. Fortunately it doesn't seem to make much impact. The data
transferred is minimal and it is no longer necessary to load a full page in
order to update it. (AJAX achieves this by using client JavaScript I think?
But you can do it in other ways as well.)
>
>
> IE 7 is pretty good - it's the best IE I've ever seen. IE 6, well -
> that's what we're mandated to use at work. At least until this fall, when
> the Air Force's Standard Desktop Configuration (SDC) 2.0 drops - Vista, IE
> 7, and Office 2007 for all!
>
> IE 5? Who cares? :) Since Ford started producing the Thunderbird and
> the Mustang, do they still produce Model T's?
>
> Firefox is not too bad. Of course, I write my code by hand, and develop
> in Firefox. I've had similar experiences developing on Firefox and then
> looking at the site in IE!
I coded my first web site entirely in Notepad using frames and all kinds of
stuff that is now 'deprecated'. VS 2005 is better. And Dreamweaver Studio 8
is great for keeping it honest.
I became quite facile in JavaScript but I prefer C# and I like the added
security of running compiled code on the server.
>
>
> No - bringing your site within standards isn't useless. :) Think of it
> as future-proofing. Lots of sites that worked great with IE 6 simply
> didn't work with IE 7 - and that's the same browser, just different
> versions! I foresee better support for W3 standards coming in future
> versions of browsers, not worse; developing to a given standard can help
> alleviate surprises.
Again, yes and no... From a theoretical point of view it is certainly more
professional and better practice to do that. But the Web is not about being
professional... I want the most fun sites I can build. I DON'T look at stuff
in B&W as Richard does, and I can't imagine running without ActiveX. I LIKE
fluff and eye-candy and I enjoy looking at other people's sites and enjoying
the features they have incorporated into them. It is fun. There is a lot of
satisfaction in having talking heads or unexpected sound effects ... I
accept cookies and I do allow ActiveX. But I'm not stupid about it... :-)
If a standard prevents me running Flash for example, then the Hell with the
standard. If 15 percent of people can't see my site because they won't run
a MS Browser on principle, then I see that as their loss. (I don't hesitate
to open Firefox if I want a different perspective; it is just crazy to get
emotional about this stuff and I am always amazed by the heat it engenders.)
Howard, a normally very reasonable man, gets about being "excluded"
and is thankful he isn't a customer of mine. (Actually, I take customer
service VERY seriously and have the referrals to prove it...) Richard gets
scathing and calls me a "good little MicroSoftee..." as if I was guilty of
some heinous crime.
All I'm doing is building some web sites and having some fun. I tried to
explain honestly and unemotionally why certain Web Masters (self included)
can't drop everything because some effect doesn't render in a non-MS
Browser, and why the support has to go into IE, but I might as well have not
bothered. The only rational response was yours, Daniel. Thank you for that.
>
> Sometimes Notepad can be your friend! :) heh...
Yes, I know, but I like to think I have made some progress in 15 years...
:-)
Actually the tools ARE very useful and most of mine have paid for themselves
many times over. Therer are SO many options and possibilities that it just
isn't realistic to be reading all the working papers coming out of W3C...
Besides, the development tools should keep track of it for me (they do up to
a point...)
The three days I spent was well spent and I have learned a good deal. The
process (and hopefully, the growth, goes on...) The site is now on a back
burner anyway, and I am up to my ears in desktop C# and COBOL at the moment.
I have to write a tool that I have re-designed 5 times and am still not
happy with, so writing this is a welcome break... Maybe on the 6th time,
after a break, it will fall into place...the problem is that a Normalized DB
has no repeating groups ( My software creates linked tables as required by
2NF, when it encounters OCCURS in the ISAM definition). Now, I need to load
the data from the original files onto the DB tables. Pretty easy, you'd
think; just read ISAM and "write" RDB...And it would be, if not for OCCURS
and REDEFINES...:-) Never mind, it is keeping me off the streets...:-)
>
> I'm not knocking what you've done. I've done the same thing (mostly in
> reverse, but I know where you're coming from). What I found really helped
> was looking up the CSS stuff on the W3C's web site, and putting most of my
> styles in CSS.
I use CSS extensively and have done for a few years now.
> I know in the .NET environment, it's not quite as easy (although I think
> most of the controls have CssClass as one of their properties) or
> "automatic", but I've found that if I do it that way, it usually doesn't
> take much to make it work in both Firefox and IE.
Yes, CSS certainly helps in that regard
>
> I'd be happy to take a quick gander at some of the more problematic areas
> if you'd like. :) You know where to find me...
That's very kind, Daniel. Thanks, I appreciate it. At the moment, I have no
problems with the Web Site. (Apart from not being able to work on it and get
it live... it is almost there but not quite.) There are some quite sexy
downloads where I have deployed with OneClick... and I need to test this
stuff in other Browsers. BTW, you might be interested to know that adding a
Web Service to your site really improves rankings. I haven't even begun to
promote the site or registered it with any SEs, or even added bot
encouragement, links, or even meta keywords to it, but the web site is
already ranked (and it isn't even live yet) because the Web Service was
picked up almost instantly.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Clark F Morris 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:1k26c3lntms024jrmj85omqui0ii5a1n91@
4ax.com...
>
>I'm sorry to hear that, Howard. Obviously, I talk to people who are like
>me... :-)
>
>Ah, now that's not quite the same thing.
>
>I don't think people who don't build web sites realise how REALLY hard it is
>to make everything work across Browsers.
>
>It is getting better with the advent of more server based code and dynamic
>generation of pages (servers are getting smart enough to generate the right
>code for whatever the Client Browser (given some encouragement from web
>developers)), but it is still a huge amount of work.
>
>I'm currently working on a major site (although it's had to move to the
>"pending" queue while I complete the database migration tools I'm doing for
>a client.)
>
>I was pretty thrilled with it, as it is the most ambitious thing I've done
>with web programming, so far. It is all ASP.NET and C# with themed headers
>and footers, alternate dynamic master pages and almost no JavaScript
>(everything is coded in C# on code-behind pages that run on the server. It
>looks pretty (I'm biased, of course...:-)) but imagine my horror when I
>found it rendered completely differently, not just on different Browsers,
>but on different versions of IE as well!
>
>The "experience" on IE7 was a dream; on IE6, it was the occasional snore,
>IE5 it was more like restless sleep, and on Firefox it was a nightmare :-).
>I never would have known if I hadn't got people to try testing it, and they
>sent me some screen shots that showed themes not rendered, pages misaligned,
>text fonts that were simply ugly, colors not rendering correctly, and some
>minor logic bugs in processes for using the Web Service and various
>downloads.
>
>I resolved to fix it (it isn't live yet, so it was more the challenge of it
>than any particular desire to meet customer demand...:-)) I spent three full
>days just finding out what I COULD do and getting it is close as possible
>across Browsers. I have tested it with FireFox, Netscape and IE5 thru IE7
>and it is much better (although it is still definitely best when seen with
>IE7). But this was several days of intensive work over long hours, and for
>very little real gain. It still looks exactly the same in IE7 as it did
>before; I might just as well have done nothing... :-)
>
>Now, if someone was paying me to develop this site I simply couldn't spend
>that amount of time on the "Cross Browser" problem.. Server stats showed
>that for the brief time I let people access it, 93% were using IE. (Previous
>sites I've done have reported over 85%). It just isn't viable to develop for
>anything other than IE. It's a pity, and I wish it weren't so, but that is
>the reality of it. As long as the page renders in other Browsers, that's the
>best I can do...(If you see flat, lifeless, buttons and scraggly fonts in
>odd colours, and input fields that don't tab correctly, as long as the page
>is aligned correctly and is visible, that's all I can guarantee...)
Here the job would have been made simpler if your development tool had
the option to force compliance with the appropriate level of the W3
standards. I also agree with others who replied that your web-site
should not depend on ActiveX because of the integrity holes it opens
for the viewer and because Microsoft in their infinite LACK OF wisdom
refuse to have an option where I can enable it by web-site on first
visit either for the session or always. It is a ROYAL pain running
Windows Update for this reason. I also would count any web-site (like
Micro-focus at least used to be) that requires FLASH to even try to
use the site. While flash is useful for some things, most things on a
site should be available (like manuals) without any need for FLASH.
Unrequested pop-ups also are a royal pain. I am happy with my
subscription to the online Wall Street Journal but find their pop-ups
very aggravating.
>
>
>Yes, IE has the market place pretty tied up. To be fair, it is much better
>than it was, but it is also more resource hungry (I'm running a 2GB notebook
>and I've seen IE7 using over 250MB...sometimes it freezes, although it has
>never crashed the system (so far...).
>
>So, the bottom line is, Howard, that complaints about problems in other
>Browsers are just relegated to the bottom of the heap, unless they are
>really drastic; things like windows not floating properly, animations not
>activating, sound files refusing, video timing out, are all not going to get
>fixed because it just isn't economic. In three days I could add new, revenue
>generating, functionality that at least 85% of the traffic can enjoy without
>problem... the people who would be paying me want maximum bang for their
>buck.
>
>I am using software and platforms that cost serious money and it STILL isn't
>easy to get Cross Browser compatibility. Between Visual Studio and
>Dreamweaver it is possible to emulate every type of Browser and screen size.
>I've done it. It makes no difference. Looks fine in emulation, look at it
>with the real thing, and it isn't...
>
>So now I'm only guaranteeing support for IE...
>
>And that was where we came in... :-)
>
>Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:15:01 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>If a standard prevents me running Flash for example, then the Hell with the
>standard. If 15 percent of people can't see my site because they won't run
>a MS Browser on principle, then I see that as their loss. (I don't hesitate
>to open Firefox if I want a different perspective; it is just crazy to get
>emotional about this stuff and I am always amazed by the heat it engenders.)
>Howard, a normally very reasonable man, gets about being "excluded"
>and is thankful he isn't a customer of mine.
I didn't mention my own emotional state.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d0s8c3la8f8rfrf3rmlf6ekpjgek1c0dch@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:15:01 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I didn't mention my own emotional state.
<post from Howard>
"Being excluded from web sites isn't a matter of indifference to me and
for lots of people who don't use IE. It's a matter of anger."
</post from Howard>
(You were probably so you didn't realise you'd said it :-))
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Alistair 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On 16 Aug, 16:15, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
A little while ago I came across the information that the most common
installed browser was IE3 and that the most rapidly improving in
numbers browser was IE6. The reasoning went along the lines that IE3
was so popular because a lot of people had old machines and did not do
any browser upgrades (eg my dad) and IE6 was the new rave flavour,
having just been released. I suppose IE7 will replace IE6 in those
stats now.
[color=darkred]
>
>
> I coded my first web site entirely in Notepad using frames and all kinds of
> stuff that is now 'deprecated'. VS 2005 is better. And Dreamweaver Studio 8
> is great for keeping it honest.
>
Ditto with me.
>
What about IE, IE2, IE3, IE4, Netscape Navigator...... Opera et al?
At what point does one decide to junk support for old or minority
browsers and go, instead, for the majority browser(s)?
Or should one hust code for the W3 standards and to hell with IE's
idiosyncracies?
[color=darkred]
>
> I DON'T look at stuff
> in B&W as Richard does, and I can't imagine running without ActiveX.
I prize security above fluff and eye-candy. Just say NO to activex.
As for fluff and eye-candy: It takes forever to download a megabyte of
fluff at 56 kpbs (and a lot of people have slower modems than that).
But this brings us back to whether one should design/build for the
latest whizz-bang pc or aim to be more inclusive.
> I LIKE
> fluff and eye-candy and I enjoy looking at other people's sites and enjoying
> the features they have incorporated into them. It is fun. There is a lot of
> satisfaction in having talking heads or unexpected sound effects ... I
> accept cookies and I do allow ActiveX. But I'm not stupid about it... :-)
>
> If a standard prevents me running Flash for example, then the Hell with the
> standard. If 15 percent of people can't see my site because they won't run
> a MS Browser on principle, then I see that as their loss.
I said much the same to a guy who used some text based browser
(opera?). He went super-nova! People can get heated about these sorts
of things (it beats the old paragraph v. section argument).
| |
| Alistair 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On 16 Aug, 16:16, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
>
>
>
>
>
> <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here the job would have been made simpler if your development tool had
> the option to force compliance with the appropriate level of the W3
> standards. I also agree with others who replied that your web-site
> should not depend on ActiveX because of the integrity holes it opens
> for the viewer and because Microsoft in their infinite LACK OF wisdom
> refuse to have an option where I can enable it by web-site on first
> visit either for the session or always. It is a ROYAL pain running
> Windows Update for this reason. I also would count any web-site (like
> Micro-focus at least used to be) that requires FLASH to even try to
> use the site. While flash is useful for some things, most things on a
> site should be available (like manuals) without any need for FLASH.
> Unrequested pop-ups also are a royal pain. I am happy with my
> subscription to the online Wall Street Journal but find their pop-ups
> very aggravating.
>
>
I believe that you can switch Flash off. Or perhaps you are referring
to Splash screens which don't display anything when Flash is switched
off?
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:83q8c3l9p90900l4oe9lcjhuabmoa4o0ll@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Here the job would have been made simpler if your development tool had
> the option to force compliance with the appropriate level of the W3
> standards.
Yes, I agree. It's actually worse than that, because Dreamweaver can monitor
the standard and tell you where you've used non-standard tags, but it still
is non-compliant even after you've checked it. It seems there is a fair bit
of latitude in interpreting the standards.
>I also agree with others who replied that your web-site
> should not depend on ActiveX because of the integrity holes it opens
> for the viewer and because Microsoft in their infinite LACK OF wisdom
> refuse to have an option where I can enable it by web-site on first
> visit either for the session or always.
My web site neither depends on nor uses ActiveX that would be downloaded to
a Client (I certainly use COM and ActiveX on the server). I'm pretty bored
with hearing about the "holes" it opens up. Been hearing this same old song
for years now, usually from people who don't know what COM even stands for,
have never written a COM component, ignore the fact that there have been 3
releases of COM+, each one steadily improving the product, plus a multitude
of security patches, but heard or read somewhere that it is a security
breach. Well, I've been implementing COM+ and DTS systems with RPCs on
networks (public and private) for nearly 10 years now and have never had a
machine infected because it had COM or ActiveX components on it. (I've had
them subjected to other attacks, none of which proved serious.) When I look
at COM, all I see is good. It lets me refactor OO COBOL code into new
environments and has saved me large amounts of time and money in the move
from COBOL to C#. HTML is more dangerous in my opinion, and you don't hear
people going on about that...
> It is a ROYAL pain running
> Windows Update for this reason. I also would count any web-site (like
> Micro-focus at least used to be) that requires FLASH to even try to
> use the site.
I don't like sites where they make me download documents in .PDF, with the
concomitant nagging from bloody Adobe and insistence I upgrade and get a
toolbar I neither need nor want. But I still go and get documents. Flash is
very nice for some effects, but I woudn't make a site depend on it.
>While flash is useful for some things, most things on a
> site should be available (like manuals) without any need for FLASH.
> Unrequested pop-ups also are a royal pain. I am happy with my
> subscription to the online Wall Street Journal but find their pop-ups
> very aggravating.
Turn them off.
I never put pop-ups on web sites and agree wholeheartedly. They spoil the
experience rather than enhancing it, and most Browsers suppress them anyway.
[color=darkred]
That doesn't mean I won't try and get Cross Browser compliance, or that I
would never change site code because of different Browsers. It just means I
develop with IE, use MS oriented tools (for the most part) and so, will only
guarantee the site when viewed in an MS Browser.
I would've thought that people would appreciate that position even if they
don't agree with it.
Never mind. Web stuff is off topic here anyway...:-)
Pete.
[color=darkred]
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:21:18 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><post from Howard>
>
>"Being excluded from web sites isn't a matter of indifference to me and
>for lots of people who don't use IE. It's a matter of anger."
I tried to make it about people in general - I guess I failed.
></post from Howard>
>
>(You were probably so you didn't realise you'd said it :-))
Possibly 8^).
My own shop doesn't test with Safari, despite being a university with
lots of Apple users. Maybe that's because they don't believe
students will stop paying tuition because the scheduling might not
work with their computers. But the whole reason we went to the web
was to save money - computers are cheaper than employees.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:27:00 -0700, Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I said much the same to a guy who used some text based browser
>(opera?). He went super-nova! People can get heated about these sorts
>of things (it beats the old paragraph v. section argument).
That has been my experience - I've seen lots of people who get quite
over such slights.
I'm too intellectual in my emotional responses - my daughter says I
must be bottling it in, because she believes anger is natural.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:50:11 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>My web site neither depends on nor uses ActiveX that would be downloaded to
>a Client (I certainly use COM and ActiveX on the server). I'm pretty bored
>with hearing about the "holes" it opens up. Been hearing this same old song
>for years now, usually from people who don't know what COM even stands for,
>have never written a COM component, ignore the fact that there have been 3
>releases of COM+, each one steadily improving the product, plus a multitude
>of security patches, but heard or read somewhere that it is a security
>breach.
It really doesn't matter if prospective customers avoid Active-X for
reasons that are invalid. If you want those customers, you let them
work with the browser of their choice, on the computer of their
choice.
>That doesn't mean I won't try and get Cross Browser compliance, or that I
>would never change site code because of different Browsers. It just means I
>develop with IE, use MS oriented tools (for the most part) and so, will only
>guarantee the site when viewed in an MS Browser.
>
>I would've thought that people would appreciate that position even if they
>don't agree with it.
And you should accept that positions like that get responses from
people who don't agree - this isn't the first argument about style on
this forum.
>Never mind. Web stuff is off topic here anyway...:-)
The concept of whether we should program to satisfy our customers is
always on-topic.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Now companies are free to decide that IE is the de facto standard, and
> those using de jure standard browsers aren't worthwhile. That is
> their right. But designing around de jure standards isn't that
> expensive and is more inclusive. That's worth money. (It may be
> that you can't use MS designed tools though).
No, it's good public policy. FireFox, for example, is known to give your cat
warts.
By insisting on IE, a responsible corporate entity is helping you do the
right thing... insofar as your cat is concerned.
If you don't have a cat, you should be okay (unless you have a parrot or a
gerbil).
| |
| Judson McClendon 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> ... I'm pretty bored with hearing about the "holes" it opens up. ...
> ... plus a multitude of security patches, ...
Security patches for something without security holes to patch? ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Richard 2007-08-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Aug 17, 4:50 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
In a hypothetical city one company ran all the car parking buildings.
All the cars that were not Ford's were being defaced: tires let down,
grease smeared on the windscreens, mud on the headlights, etc. When
complaints were made the company said that "95% of the cars parking in
the buildings were Fords, so they didn't care about the tiny numbers
of other cars that existed. If you want to have a great parking
experience then go buy a Ford. Later the Fords that were not XP or
Vista models were getting defaced."
[color=darkred]
>
> My web site neither depends on nor uses ActiveX that would be downloaded to
> a Client (I certainly use COM and ActiveX on the server).
When people talk about a web site 'using' ActiveX they understand this
to mean client side ActiveX loaded into the client. They neither know
nor care what happens on the server.
> I'm pretty bored
> with hearing about the "holes" it opens up. Been hearing this same old song
> for years now, usually from people who don't know what COM even stands for,
> have never written a COM component, ignore the fact that there have been 3
> releases of COM+, each one steadily improving the product, plus a multitude
> of security patches, but heard or read somewhere that it is a security
> breach. Well, I've been implementing COM+ and DTS systems with RPCs ...
You are talking at cross purposes. Client ActiveX does have "holes"
and is unfixable.
> HTML is more dangerous in my opinion, and you don't hear
> people going on about that...
Then you have a very strange opinion. It may be that IE can be broken
in some ways, for example some 16bit characters in a URL will cause
the rest of the URL to be hidden, but this is a Windows failure not
HTML.
> I don't like sites where they make me download documents in .PDF, with the
> concomitant nagging from bloody Adobe and insistence I upgrade and get a
> toolbar I neither need nor want. But I still go and get documents.
You don't have to put up with that. You can make the web behave the
way that _you_ want to just as I make it the way that _I_ want. In
particular you can have an add-on the Firefox such as 'PDF Download'
and have it displayed as HTML or downlaod, or load it into another
reader such as xpdf (even on Windows) or kpdf (KDE runs on Windows).
> I never put pop-ups on web sites and agree wholeheartedly. They spoil the
> experience rather than enhancing it, and most Browsers suppress them anyway.
IE7 has caught up in some respects. yes.
> That doesn't mean I won't try and get Cross Browser compliance, or that I
> would never change site code because of different Browsers. It just means I
> develop with IE, use MS oriented tools (for the most part) and so, will only
> guarantee the site when viewed in an MS Browser.
>
> I would've thought that people would appreciate that position even if they
> don't agree with it.
I can appreciate that position as long as the exclusion is not from
ignorance, which it obviously isn't.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:8fi6c39v6ltegtd71t8ekjpasocgbpnhbg@
4ax.com...
>
> It's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot... no-one is excluding you
> except yourself.
Are you serious? :) IE is a big security hole. Sure, there's not a
problem if you only use it on trusted web sites, but it's a pain to
change browsers just to view another site. Should they lower their
security just to use a web site?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| Alistair wrote:
> On 16 Aug, 16:15, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
> A little while ago I came across the information that the most common
> installed browser was IE3 and that the most rapidly improving in
> numbers browser was IE6. The reasoning went along the lines that IE3
> was so popular because a lot of people had old machines and did not do
> any browser upgrades (eg my dad) and IE6 was the new rave flavour,
> having just been released. I suppose IE7 will replace IE6 in those
> stats now.
Yikes. IE 3 sucked! (Even when it was new, Netscape Navigator 2 blew
it away...)
> What about IE, IE2, IE3, IE4, Netscape Navigator...... Opera et al?
> At what point does one decide to junk support for old or minority
> browsers and go, instead, for the majority browser(s)?
>
> Or should one hust code for the W3 standards and to hell with IE's
> idiosyncracies?
It doesn't have to be either/or. :) I've found that everything that
works with Firefox also works with Konqueror - the fonts are rendered at
a different size, but the boxes and lines are the same.
I don't have any qualms at all about not supporting IE 6. Even though,
in my previous post, I called IE a security hole, IE 7 is much better
than IE 6. I know IE 7 can be installed on XP and Vista, and I think
it'll go on W2K as well. 98/ME? Heck, if Microsoft isn't supporting
one of its own OS's, why should I? :)
>
> I said much the same to a guy who used some text based browser
> (opera?). He went super-nova! People can get heated about these sorts
> of things (it beats the old paragraph v. section argument).
That was probably lynx. True, there can be some heated debate on this.
My biggest gripe with Flash is that they won't make a 64-bit Flash
plug-in. I have to maintain 2 versions of Firefox, just so I can see
YouTube or other active content (Java, etc.).
(Of course, normally, not having all those flashing animations is fine
with me. Between running the AdBlock Plus plug-in and a 64-bit browser,
I don't really have many annoyances at all in my journeys through the web.)
I'm probably dating myself now - does anyone remember the 7-bit versus
8-bit debates on FidoNet? heh heh heh...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:UfCdnQBwRflDIl7bnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> Hmmm... yes and no. If I can serve dynamic content, why shouldn't I do so
> with dynamic style? (I can, of course, as long as I get themes and CSS
> right... ;-))
Right - but, generally, you're going to change the classes of what
you're generating. Instead of
<tr>
<td>Status</td>
<td style="font-weight:bold;color:white;background-color:red;">SOLD
OUT</td>
</tr>
you'd do something like
<tr>
<td>Status</td>
<td class="soldout">SOLD OUT</td>
</tr>
Then, for each stylesheet (theme), you'd define "soldout" to appear
however you wanted. I wouldn't want to shovel all that inline style
stuff around. :)
>
> It just missed AJAX. I have downloaded the AJAX tutorials and am about 40%
> through them. I simply haven't got time (or inclination) to go back and
> change it. There is some posting back as nearly all code is running on the
> server. Fortunately it doesn't seem to make much impact. The data
> transferred is minimal and it is no longer necessary to load a full page in
> order to update it. (AJAX achieves this by using client JavaScript I think?
> But you can do it in other ways as well.)
Well, AJAX stands for Asynchronous JavaScript And XML, so I think it's
pretty much JavaScript. :)
> I coded my first web site entirely in Notepad using frames and all kinds of
> stuff that is now 'deprecated'. VS 2005 is better. And Dreamweaver Studio 8
> is great for keeping it honest.
Frames were so ... back in the day, anyway...
>
> Again, yes and no... From a theoretical point of view it is certainly more
> professional and better practice to do that. But the Web is not about being
> professional... I want the most fun sites I can build. I DON'T look at stuff
> in B&W as Richard does, and I can't imagine running without ActiveX. I LIKE
> fluff and eye-candy and I enjoy looking at other people's sites and enjoying
> the features they have incorporated into them. It is fun. There is a lot of
> satisfaction in having talking heads or unexpected sound effects ... I
> accept cookies and I do allow ActiveX. But I'm not stupid about it... :-)
I really haven't used IE 7 enough to know how it handles ActiveX. (I
can't on this laptop now - there isn't IE for Ubuntu, and even then, I'm
sure there wouldn't be a 64-bit version!)
> If a standard prevents me running Flash for example, then the Hell with the
> standard. If 15 percent of people can't see my site because they won't run
> a MS Browser on principle, then I see that as their loss.
For some, it's principle. For others, it may be a restriction on their
hardware (Apple) or operating system (Linux). Yes, they chose to buy or
run something other than Wintel, but "just opening IE" isn't even an option.
(I did notice while I was going through my logs yesterday that Safari,
the Mac browser, seemed to come in a solid 3rd behind IE and Firefox.)
> (I don't hesitate
> to open Firefox if I want a different perspective; it is just crazy to get
> emotional about this stuff and I am always amazed by the heat it engenders.)
> Howard, a normally very reasonable man, gets about being "excluded"
> and is thankful he isn't a customer of mine. (Actually, I take customer
> service VERY seriously and have the referrals to prove it...) Richard gets
> scathing and calls me a "good little MicroSoftee..." as if I was guilty of
> some heinous crime.
On Howard's point, I see it. Repeated annoyances can become
frustrating, and when webmaster blow him off because "it works fine on
IE", I can understand anger. And, you really can't be surprised by
Richard's take on it, can you? You've stated your choices, and his
views on MicroSoft are widely known. :) (I still think it's funny that
two *guys* named a company a combination of "micro" and "soft"... I
think MacroHard would have been a better name.)
I also saw your comments on ActiveX as a security risk. I think for a
lot of us, it's "once bitten, twice shy" (except replace "once" with
some much larger number).
> All I'm doing is building some web sites and having some fun. I tried to
> explain honestly and unemotionally why certain Web Masters (self included)
> can't drop everything because some effect doesn't render in a non-MS
> Browser, and why the support has to go into IE, but I might as well have not
> bothered. The only rational response was yours, Daniel. Thank you for that.
I didn't see as much irrationality in their posts as you did - but, it
wasn't directed at me, either.
>
> Yes, I know, but I like to think I have made some progress in 15 years...
> :-)
>
> Actually the tools ARE very useful and most of mine have paid for themselves
> many times over. Therer are SO many options and possibilities that it just
> isn't realistic to be reading all the working papers coming out of W3C...
Heh - I don't have that kind of time either. I just set my doctype, and
look up what I don't know. I also regularly validate the pages that I
can (if they're not password-protected, for example) with their
validation services. Once it's valid, I see how it looks in IE. If I
tweak it, I'll revalidate. I'll also remember what I had to do, so in
theory, next time my code will be more portable.
You want an interesting experience? Turn off images. It's amazing the
difference in the web when images are turned off. :) I had to do that
while I was deployed last year. That deployment also gave me a renewed
hatred for ad sites - the US ad sites aren't very responsive from the
other side of the globe.
> Besides, the development tools should keep track of it for me (they do up to
> a point...)
heh - "should" and "to a point" - I think that's the level of compliance
most browser have with the W3C's standards! ;)
> The three days I spent was well spent and I have learned a good deal. The
> process (and hopefully, the growth, goes on...)
...
> Pretty easy, you'd
> think; just read ISAM and "write" RDB...And it would be, if not for OCCURS
> and REDEFINES...:-) Never mind, it is keeping me off the streets...:-)
heh - best of luck. I've had a heck of a w. I get pulled away from
my desk doing all this extra stuff, then people want to know why I'm
behind in my work from what I had scheduled. Gee, I wonder...
>
> That's very kind, Daniel. Thanks, I appreciate it. At the moment, I have no
> problems with the Web Site.
That's good. The offer still stands, though, if something comes up in
the future. I actually enjoy that sort of thing. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-17, 3:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:vi59c3dvt24dlaugmod5uleqn639g6a7jj@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:50:11 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> It really doesn't matter if prospective customers avoid Active-X for
> reasons that are invalid. If you want those customers, you let them
> work with the browser of their choice, on the computer of their
> choice.
>
>
> And you should accept that positions like that get responses from
> people who don't agree - this isn't the first argument about style on
> this forum.
>
>
> The concept of whether we should program to satisfy our customers is
> always on-topic.
Read that last sentence again and engage your "pompous bullshit" filter :-)
None of my customers has suffered due to the policies I adopt. (They
certainly would if I adopted the policies you are suggesting.)
I see my customers as associates. Just like people who come to my house;
you're welcome, but you take me as you find me. Don't grizzle because I
haven't got a special room where you can face East and do the chicken dance.
Amazingly, most of my visitors have no such requirement, and are perfectly
happy to share a JD in the lounge. :-)
(Last post on this stupidity...)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-17, 3:55 am |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1187303899.451981.309060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 4:50 am, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> In a hypothetical city one company ran all the car parking buildings.
> All the cars that were not Ford's were being defaced: tires let down,
> grease smeared on the windscreens, mud on the headlights, etc. When
> complaints were made the company said that "95% of the cars parking in
> the buildings were Fords, so they didn't care about the tiny numbers
> of other cars that existed. If you want to have a great parking
> experience then go buy a Ford. Later the Fords that were not XP or
> Vista models were getting defaced."
>
>
> When people talk about a web site 'using' ActiveX they understand this
> to mean client side ActiveX loaded into the client. They neither know
> nor care what happens on the server.
>
>
> You are talking at cross purposes. Client ActiveX does have "holes"
> and is unfixable.
>
>
> Then you have a very strange opinion. It may be that IE can be broken
> in some ways, for example some 16bit characters in a URL will cause
> the rest of the URL to be hidden, but this is a Windows failure not
> HTML.
>
>
>
> You don't have to put up with that. You can make the web behave the
> way that _you_ want to just as I make it the way that _I_ want. In
> particular you can have an add-on the Firefox such as 'PDF Download'
> and have it displayed as HTML or downlaod, or load it into another
> reader such as xpdf (even on Windows) or kpdf (KDE runs on Windows).
>
>
> IE7 has caught up in some respects. yes.
>
>
> I can appreciate that position as long as the exclusion is not from
> ignorance, which it obviously isn't.
>
Thank you Richard. I know you don't like MS so I thought your post was
"restrained" :-)
There is far too much heat in this subject and I have all the heat I can
handle at the moment so no more on this...
Thanks for a balanced response.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-08-17, 3:55 am |
|
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13c9cmei9ja2s1c@news.supernews.com...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> No, it's good public policy. FireFox, for example, is known to give your
> cat warts.
>
> By insisting on IE, a responsible corporate entity is helping you do the
> right thing... insofar as your cat is concerned.
>
> If you don't have a cat, you should be okay (unless you have a parrot or a
> gerbil).
>
Exactly. That's why I opted for MS in the first place.
After Polly spread the FirePox virus to Waldo and he stopped playing with
his balls, well, it was just heart-rending.
Then Schroedinger pounced on Waldo, who was distracted by the wart
developing on his nose, and devoured him while I was out of the house.
Schroedinger left me Waldo's feet and the nose wart as a trophy, never
knowing that he had ingested a gerbil riddled with FirePox. (I've had them
bronzed and they are on the mantel, but it chokes me up just thinking about
him...)
Meantime, Polly's feathers were falling out and she spent most of her time
sitting shivering on her perch shrieking: "Christ, it's freaking
ccclllllllld!!" or "So, what're YOU looking at?!" if visitors
arrived. This was disappointing for me as I had spent hours teaching her
famous parrot phrases like: "Polly wants a cracker..." and "XXXX OFF!" On
being asked if she wanted a cracker, she just replied: "I want a freaking
over | | |