I don't get why the browsers can't fully follow the damn standards. It's not like they're not known.
Printable View
I don't get why the browsers can't fully follow the damn standards. It's not like they're not known.
i think theres a lot of reasons.
its sometimes in a companies interest to do something a little different to cater to their own products/ideas.
some parts of the standards have room for interperetation.
they simply make mistakes during implementation.
but most of all, they change. a lot. so, the version of the standards that they adhere to might be different by the time another browser comes out just a short time after.
Because Microsoft has a real financial interest to not completely follow the web standards. It's that simple. We have to test in IE and to do that we need a Windows license.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Fredi
It's just not Microsoft. Didn't you just tussle with a Safari specific issue? I know I've had some things work perfect, by the book CSS code work in IE, but not in FF. It's rare, but it's happened.
But the take on IE/Windows license... I can honestly say I've never thought of it like that before though.
The other reason of course is that it's really hard to get something as complex as the current browser engines (or any other complex software) to work completly bug free and sometimes you just have a different idea how something defined in the satndards should work. That Safari bug I mentioned: If you copy something from one place to another with innerHTML and than clear the content at the old place, for a small moment there are the same exact ids and classes twice on the document. Now Safari can only access one element with the same id (like every other browser), the first one it finds, so it just ignores that second one. After the old content at the original place is deleted, Safari still has no knowledge of the elements at its new position and so you can't target them. The solution however is simple, just copy the content into a variable first, than delete the original content before you insert the content of the variable at it's new place. Theoreticaly you could say that this is actually the correct behavior as there never ever should be two elements with the same id's, but of course it would be nice to act like all the other browsers that just re-index the whole content after every new command that changes something inside the page.
Fredi
And what's to say a "plug-in" solution will deliver all that's required any better than browser based? As many problems as there are with the browser varieties there are just as many issues with plugin solutions for many applications (as in applications of use).
So why not seek to get browser to simply follow the standards, rather than seek to follow ANOTHER plugin application that has a whole other set of issues? That would seem to solve most people's issues, no?
because to "get browser to simply follow the standards" is, in fact, not simple if reasonably possible at all. the main reasons were just touched on. there are various incentives for companies to do things differently, they make mistakes when building the browsers and interperet things differently. its not a matter of getting everyone to say "ok, i agree now, lets build them the same."
the reason a plug-in model would work better is because there would only be one parser for each type of content. the various browsers would simply house the same viewers and implement cross-viewing features such as bookmarks, cookies, etc. that way, end behavior could be more predictable.
i know what the counter argument is to that and one of the main stated reasons for a neutral standards group. they claim that such a system would give one company too much power and which they could abuse by charging license fees to use their parser and it would be too late if everyone relied on it to change. basically, the argument is inspired by general mistrust in corporations.
i dont believe that argument is valid because that scenario is very closely playing out that way anyway but without the license fees and that there wouldnt have to be "one plug-in to view everything." w3c has already become a puppet to a myriad of corporate influences. basically, they grew into a corporation themselves, funded by larger ones who buy the power to have a say on how things are done. the goal to keep standards neutral of corporate control has already failed. one way or another, we're paying w3c and not getting any of the benefits a one-parser system would afford.
If you really think everyone should use the plugins, wouldn't it be better if there was only one browser? Instead of having multiple browsers with the same plugin, why not have the same browser. Internet monopoly would be great, everything would look the same, and if there were any security issues, everyone would get them.
I like the way things are today. Pages look almost the same across browsers, if you use the right languages. If you make everything in xhtml and css2, then there is little room for interpretations. The different browsers interpret most of it the same way, and with IE 7 its even better. The few differences are minor, and with a few hacks, they are dealt with.
I like to see the same arguement put to an mp3>mp3 player, as what your saying would mean that an mp3 player manufacturer would not have to stick to market standards so we could end up with the same mp3 track sounding completely different over numerous mp3 players.... yeah as if that would be acceptable...Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
except for having to sniff for the plugin and player versions to ensure content can be seen...Quote:
Originally Posted by flashLacky
Personally I don't have a problem with the way browsers are slowly improving there end products, nearly all modern browsers are near standard compliant as ever before, and when you do come across an issue its often just a matter of adding a small hack or filter to correct for that browser. so whats the big deal...
Make it too easy to design and develop and your cutting another hole into the market to allow any old idiot to undercut your trade.
I can see how that quote could easily have been misconstrued. I am by no means against standards in code and browser design. I don't suggest that the SAME web site behaving differently in 2 different web browsers is ok (which is what the effect of FF turning off javscript window.focus() by default in my original post effectively does). What I mean is there seems to been an attitued that ALL web sites should behave the same (ie. Yahoo! should behave the same as coke.com).Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stbite
mp3 !== web site.An mp3 is a file format specifically for playing audio, that by definition is required to behave the same in all players. I think it is narrow minded to suggest that all web sites share the same purpose. A web site is simply a presentation that can be composed of multple formats and delivered over the interenet... just what it's purpose is and how that presentation or information is delivered I believe should be soley in the hands of the developer, not the web browser medium.
I want to stay on topic but do you have any links that explain how those work and look to google? I've done some reading but it seem any better than alt content using the swfobject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
carry on.
Flash MX anchors:
http://www.flashmagazine.com/688.htm
Same idea but with JavaScript:
http://www.actionscript.org/resource...ash/Page1.html
never used Flash MX anchors but i assume its also javaScript
::Edit::
wierdly enough I just come across this little OS project:
http://www.asual.com/swfaddress/
meant to support:
* Mozilla Firefox 1+
* Internet Explorer 6+
* Mozilla 1.8+
* Safari 1.3+
* Camino 1+
* Opera 9.02+
* Netscape 8+
and allows search engine indexing for deeo flash links apparently...
Well now...that is the link of the week :thumbsup:
It wouldn't be a monopoly because there would still be more than one plug-in. The W3C plug-in would handle standards based content which could in turn also hold content played by the flash plug-in, etc as it does now. I dont see why there would need to be one browser. Different browsers do things a little differently on non-content related functionality (cookies, tabbing windows, etc.). So, they could continue that as well and people would still have choice there. [New standards could be developed as well, creating competition. Conformity of development still wouldn't be a problem because it would be done for a specific standard.]Quote:
Originally Posted by ihoss.com
It wouldnt be any more of a monopoly than it is now. There would just be one interpetation of the standard, put together presumably by the group that set it. I mean, does anyone think that having multiple interperetations that arent in sync is good at any level?
The major plug-ins (w3c, flash, perhaps some others) could be pre-packaged with a browser install. It would not be difficult to include auto-updating features into the plug-in or browser either. All kinds of software products handle their own updating.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stbite
:D Sophistry was invented centuries ago. Wouldn't you rather all development be as easy as possible so that you can get more done in less time and improve the quality of the product? Frankly, I find standards-based work so convoluted that I can't understand how anyone would prefer that work over other languages, given equal job opportunities. It must keep tylenol in business I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stbite
Well, why not let's have a plugin for displaying XHTML and CSS content? That would seem to keep everyone happy.
One plugin that works.
Browser standards followed by browser manufacturers.
Same donkey different name, imho.
Well. I think they have the same goal. The difference would just be feasibility. We already know that one of them doesn't work. I can only think of one case where I ran into an inconsistency between browsers in flash.
anyway, no need to worry about it because its very unlikely to happen. theres too much interest invested by mozilla, microsoft, w3c, et al into the current broken model. a plug-in system would cut a lot of their control out and would require at least one of their dedication to make happen.
Just as there's too much self-interest by plugin developers. If we went down the path you advocate, which would also mean opening up plugin development to open source to make it fair (otherwise you're looking at the same issue that happened with MS), then you would have exactly the same situation where plugin developers decided to "add in" features to make their plugin stand out. The only reason plugins are consistent is because they are propriety.
And think about it, even though they are propriety, so have no competition, they have still had their security issues. Can you imagine if there was competition?! My God!!
I dont see why the plug-ins would need to be open-source. I am an advocate of open-source software. But, that doesnt mean that open-source is best for everything. If such plug-ins were open-source, it would defeat the purpose of having them. Browser companies would simply develop their own versions and we'd be stuck with the same idiosyncrasies. The proprietariness of the plug-ins is what would make them better/less pulled in 1000 directions.
The flash plug-in is proprietary and none of the doomsday scenarios have panned out as standards based circles have suggested they would. Thats because proprietary does not equal monopoly. There is competition that prevents companies from acting unfairly. That would continue to be the case if all web platforms were proprietary plug-ins.