jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Wed Aug 12 15:00:56 CDT 2009
>> The point is, things are significantly better now with modern browsers. Your development experience back then does not have to be repeated today. And MY point is that "significantly better" can still be pretty screwy. I use Blockbuster. They mail me disks and I mail them back. They email me "we sent you" and "we received" kinds of emails as they ship and receive the disks. Those emails were working just fine, suddenly they are rendering as the "outlines" of where there should be little pictures. BUT... NOT ALWAYS. Some emails render correctly, some don't. It APPEARS to be something they are doing on their end, something that they insert into the page to be rendered because I can go back to emails in the beginning and they ALL render correctly. The bigger point here is that Access "renders" fine regardless. As does VB / C# .Net. HTML is just too "out there", and the render engines are too independently defined to be 100% reliable. So we have the question "am I going to put my business on that foundation"? If I am NOT going to try to access the database remotely over the web, if I am just doing this internal, why in the world would I do that? Think about this Blockbuster experience. I am a database developer for some company, and suddenly I am stopping what I am doing to try to figure out why the render engine (at the far end no less) is dropping all of the pictures. THAT IS NOT DATABASE STUFF, not application stuff!!! That is not my application, that is not what they hired me to do. Now I understand that Blockbuster has a pressing need, but the point is that if I am a developer for an INTERNAL application, I would be thinking VERY carefully about this kind of experience before I recommended going to a browser based application. Whether you do Access or a .Net is a whole 'nother question, but to try and make an application "browser based" just seems to be a non-starter UNLESS there is a pressing need to do so that is not being addressed by a "Windows Native" application. "Just because it's cool" is not (IMHO) a pressing need. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com Mark Simms wrote: > Funny.... > I've been waiting for 6 months for Firefox to be fixed to render a web page > that IE6 rendered easily. > Sent them 3 tech support requests. It was never fixed. > It was some sort of "grid" heavily CSS-based. > The website must have been getting complaints as a result of complaints from > Firefox users.... > so they changed it to show the data as PDF file links ! > That's great progress....and very typical of "today's" tech environment: > Doing the right thing, versus DOING THINGS RIGHT. >> All modern browsers pass the Acid2 test: >> http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ >> >> And most make significant inroads on Acid3: >> http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/ >> >> The point is, things are significantly better now with modern >> browsers. Your development experience back then does not have >> to be repeated today. > > You are partially correct..it was back in the oh-so-awful days of Netscape ! > > >