Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla, Opera Form Group to Develop Web App Specs

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the working-towards-a-better-future dept.

Mozilla 311

An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is reporting that the Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software have formed a working group to develop specifications for Web applications. The new Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group is working on specs for Web Forms 2.0, Web Apps 1.0 and Web Controls 1.0, among others. This is being done outside of the W3C, with the hope of getting a viable alternative to Longhorn's XAML available soon. Another reason for working outside the W3C could be the rift between Mozilla/Opera and other W3C members over what technologies Web applications solutions such be based on: Mozilla/Opera favour a backwards-compatible HTML-based standard, others are looking towards to XForms and SVG. It will be interesting to see if any other browser developers jump on board WHATWG." This story builds on our recent story concerning the group.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

vespazzari (141683) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355048)

Whooohooo First post EVAR!!!

WARNING: Do not search for Mothman Prophecies (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355067)

Please under no circumstances use Mozilla to search for "mothman prophecies"!

Readers of the book, "The Mothman Prophecies," often experienced unnerving phenomena such as electronic devices emiting static, or strange sounds, or phonecalls from a mechanical voice reciting a series of numbers. When told about how the book was nearly impossible to find--gone missing from a multitude of libraries--and that the book's sequal, as well as its author had gone missing as well, it piqued my interest enough for me to inquire about it at our own university library the next day.

Couldn't find it and then I turned to searching Google with my Mozilla. I found some links, but tonight to my horror a distorted, vaguely mechanical voice called me on my cellphone. No caller ID, just this horrible cold mechanical voice reading numbers.

Now I'm fucking scared!

Re:WARNING: Do not search for Mothman Prophecies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355113)

1 7 5 4 6 2 4 8 1 0 3 4 9 7 5 5 6 2 7 5 6 3 1 5 4 8 6 4 9 6 3 0 1 5 0 4 8 0 3 6 2 5 6 9 7 4

Re:WARNING: Do not search for Mothman Prophecies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355140)

Alright already... I WON'T!!!

Here's a clue: Everyone can see that you're nothing more than a troll! We know that reverse phsychology trick, and you don't come anywhere near the effectiveness that any one of our mothers have had on us.

Of course you're probably thinking, "Any publicity is good publicity," but pitching "Methman Phalacies" or whatever the heck you're selling isn't going to fly around here.

Do yourself a favor: Piss off!

WARNING: Do not reply to this Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355159)

Please under no circumstances use Mozilla to reply to "Anonymous Coward"! Replyers to the poster, "Anonymous Coward" often experienced unnerving phenomena such as electronic devices emiting static, or strange sounds, or phonecalls from a mechanical voice reciting a series of numbers. When told about how the poster was nearly impossible to find--gone missing from a multitude of Slashdot articles--and that the posts replies, as well as its author had been bitch slapped as well, it piqued my interest enough for me to inquire about it at a hidden SID the next day. Couldn't find it and then I turned to searching Google with my Mozilla. I found some links, but tonight to my horror a distorted, vaguely mechanical voice called me on my cellphone. No caller ID, just this horrible cold mechanical voice reading numbers. Now I'm fucking scared!

Re:WARNING: Do not search for Mothman Prophecies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355179)

Be scared beotch that was me and I'm comin to git ya!

Start your day... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355049)

With a fresh dupe [] .

Re:Start your day... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355054)

your link is in the summary. get a freaking clue you tit.

Re:Start your day... (2, Informative)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355056)

The one noted difference between the previous post about this and this one is that before it was being taken to W3C and now it is being done outside W3C.

Looks like W3C rejected this.

Curl? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355069)

I wish they'd look at "The Curl Project" [] that was started at MIT as part of the same DARPA grant that started the W3C.

Their whitepaper [] describes a cool S-expression based language (kinda like a blend of HTML and Scheme) that elegantly merges the simplicity of markup languages with the power/complexity of lisp.

Re:Curl? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355083)

Also worth checking out the demos [] (large browser plugin [] needed) that a commercial organiztion made based on this technology.

Seems a far richer environment than Flash. Everything from XML parsers to 3D rendering built into that browser plugin.

Re:Curl? (2, Interesting)

hixie (116369) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355250)

I've looked at curl. If I remember correctly, it was not compatible with HTML, and IMHO did not separate style and content cleanly enough.

Re:Start your day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355057)

Time to end your day

This story builds on our recent story concerning the group.


yay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355053)

me too!!!

Can anyone see this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355055)

The intraweb is cool.

Warning to Mozilla devs to NOT coperate with GNOME (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355062)

Mozilla developers, here are a few reasons why it's better to not coperate with the GNOME people. This is a cut&paste from another thread but the information might be worth.


That's quite an facile editorial but you can't expect better from normal users. My screenshot looks better than yours. Evolution is better than KMail, GNOME looks more polished than KDE and so on. I do use XChat, Abiword, Rhythmbox.... ...usually you get stuff like these from normal users. And this is ok since you can't blame them for stuff they simply don't know about or don't have a slighest knowledge about.

Such editorials are hard to take serious since they are build up on basicly NO deeper knowledge of the matter. Most people I met so far are full of prejudices and seek for excuses or explaination why they prefer the one over the other while in reality they have no slightest clue on what parameters they compare the things.

If people do like the gance ICONS over the functionality then it's quite ok but that's absolutely NO framework to do such comparisons.

I do come from the GNOME architecture and spent the last 5 years on it. I also spent a lot of time (nearly 1 year now if I sum everything up) on KDE 3.x architecture including the latest KDE 3.2 (please note I still do use GNOME and I am up to CVS 2.6 release myself).

Although calling myself a GNOME vetaran I am also not shy to criticise GNOME and I do this in the public as well. Ok I got told from a couple of people if I don't like GNOME that I simply should switch and so on. But these are usually people who have a tunnelview and do not want to see or understand the problems around GNOME.

Speaking as a developer with nearly 23years of programming skills on my back I can tell you that GNOME may look polished on the first view but on the second view it isn't.

Technically GNOME is quite a messy architecture with a lot of unfinished, half polished and half working stuff inside. Given here are examples like broken gnome-vfs, half implementations of things (GStreamer still half implemented into GNOME (if you can call it an implementation at all)) rapid changes of things that make it hard for developers to catch up and a never ending bughunting. While it is questionable if some stuff can simply be fixed with patches while it's more required to publicly talk about the Framework itself.

Sure GNOME will become better but the time developers spent fixing all the stuff is the time that speaks for KDE to really improve it with needed features. We here on GNOME are only walking in the circle but don't have a real progress in true usability (not that farce people talk to one person and then to the next). Real usability here is using the features provided by the architecture that is when I as scientists want to do UML stuff that I seriously find an application written for that framework that can do it. When I eye over to the KDE architecture then as strange it sounds I do find more of these needed tools than I can find on GNOME. This can be continued in many areas where I find more scientific Software to do my work and Software that works reliable and not crash or misbehave or behave unexpected.

Comparing Nautilus with Konqueror is pure nonsense, comparing GNOME with KDE is even bigger nonsense. If we get a team of developers on a Table and discuss all the crap we find between KDE and GNOME then I can tell from own experience that the answer is clearly that GNOME will fail horrible here.

We still have many issues on GNOME which are Framework related. We now got the new Fileselector but yet they still act differently in each app. Some still have the old Fileselector, some the new Fileselector, some appearance of new Fileselectors are differently than in other apps that use the new Fileselector code and so on. When people talk about polish and consistency, then I like to ask what kind of consistency and polish is this ? We still have a couple of different ways to open Window in GNOME.

- GTK-Application-Window,
- BonoboUI Window,
- GnomeUI Window,

Then a lot of stuff inside GNOME are hardcoded UI's, some are using *.glade files (not to mention that GLADE the interface builder is still not aware of the new Widgets in GTK and even not aware of the deprecated ones), then we have *.xml files for BonoboUI windows etc. As you can see it's a pain to maintain all this junk. These are just a little spot on the entire Mountain. I can countless bring up more stuff. Sure these things are being worked on. No doubt but as I said they WORK on it this means that there is NO real progress for the future since people write new apps for GNOME and probably use old API and then they need to change huge parts of their code only to adopt the new API rather than working on the application itself to bring it forward with better features the user needs.

Why do I say these things in public and still use GNOME. Well when I started, I was developing stuff using the Motif widgetset and during that time around 1999 KDE and GNOME were looking quite similar from features and stuff. So I decided to work on and for GNOME although I am not quite happy with many so called 'solutions' inside GNOME and I think that we need to discuss them (on whatever place it is) to make people who like to contribute to GNOME know where the problems are and how we can solve them (if possible).

From my person experience KDE is far far superior of the inferior GNOME when it comes to technical aspects. Even if there are a few Menu entries to much or the Toolbar is overblown in Konqueror these are all cosmetical things that can be changed if needed (and if the developers think it's a good thing) but looking at the amount of KDE users and applications that got stomped out of nothing I do believe that there are a lot of people simply happy how KDE is as it is now.

If they change the Fileselector in KDE then it's inherited by other applications. So the author doesn't need to change huge leaps of code since they simply inherit it. If someone changes the Addressbook object then it's being inherit in other applications, same for Clock, Bookmarks etc. The Fileselector looks similar in all apps, the Toolbars and Menu look similar in all apps etc. They have quite nifty features that I am missing in GNOME. Even nowadays I ask myself if the developers working on GNOME are still on track of what the user really wants or if they are not caught in a tunnelview here by doing something no-one can really use.

When I hear people talking about all these cool usability studies SUN made then I need to smile here since this thing is laying back a few years now. And SUN already started working on their GLASS Desktop based on JAVA (no it's not GNOME based). The reason why SUN still works on GNOME is as far as I was told is that they had a 5 years contract with GNOME to do so. Anyways you can't depend on old usability tests. To warranty true usability these tests needs to be re-done every now and then so you can guarantee some sort of quality assurance that the stuff is still on track and truly usable for people.

Usable not as in which button to press, usable as in 'can I find the apps I need to do my business work'. or 'can I copy files and subdirs from FTP and have the stuff arrive correctly on my Desktop' (gnome-vfs still horrbly fails here).

Well I think people should really do an article based on these things since they are elementary for a Desktop. Neverthless I do believe that both sides KDE and GNOME do work hard on their Desktop but truly I believe that KDE makes better steps forward and imo in the right direction too. Even alternative stuff such as MorphOS or XFCE are far more useroriented and friendlier to use than what GNOME offers today.

> Perhaps GNOME is a bloody mess inside and KDE is a
> masterpiece, but does that really matter to the user?

Yes it does matter. We today place the stones for the road tomorrow. And we should decide wisely which stones we lay on that road. Should be go for an inferior Desktop which stagnates because developers are messing around in the Framework or should we go for a technical supperior Desktop ? Yes USERS do care a lot and it matters a lot of them as well. Since these users want to use polished applications, applications that are tightly integrated, that share one database for their Addressbooks, one database for their Bookmarks, they simply want to put all their Addresses in one database and be sure they can use these things in their Word like application (serial letters) in their Cellphone syncing app, in their Palm or PowerPC syncing app, in their Email client and so on. It matters a lot for the user if he can reliable use a FTP client or Filemanager to copy a bunch of files from A to B without worrying whether the stuff appeared correctly or not. And yes it matters a lot for the user whether he can be sure that new applications can rapidely be developed (even by himself) in a short time due to taking objects. And yes it also matters for us all whether a nice Desktop is being used which works reliable in all areas and guarantees new applications since we wanted to demonstrate outside world (non Linux people) how far Linux and the Desktop really are. How can we demonstrate the world outside that KDE is in many areas even far supperior over WindowsXP (in Desktop functionality) if we show people how nice icons GNOME has and as soon they start using it figure out that it's a mess ?

And yes, there is nothing wrong for KDE being similar to Windows. I want Windows for Linux. At least it offers me a cool Desktop with similar functionality and cool stuff. Hell I don't even come from Windows I used to be an AmigaOS person before that.

Better a Windows look and behave like rather than a Desktop that fit's nowhere where people and industry needs to spend hours and probably millions of Dollars into teaching their people how to do simpliest things. Now tell your customers who pay for your service how to use gconftool-2 for example. They will chop your testi**es off and put them in a glass with alcoholics.

> the difference is that Gconfig it is aimed for advanced
> users and Kpanel for general use.

And here is the problem. GNOME these days aims for the unexperienced users. Quite a contradictorily to the aims of GNOME don't you think. Most important settings are simply hidden behind GConf (and not Gconfig better you get off and learn some basics before teaching knowledged people what the differences are).

> I don't want I windows on Linux, the reason I use Linux is
> to get off MS, and what about Mac users who don't like
> Windows and want something else?.

Honestly, KDE is closer to both of them than GNOME. KDE offers the MacOSX way of Menu system (Top Menu), KDE has a cool Liquid Theme, KDE can look quite close to anything you like. It can even look like MorphOS.

But back to a normal conversation. You should look back in the mid 80's and compare the things today. Most Desktop solutions are all the same.

- Window
- Window can be moved,
- Icon on Desktop,
- Icon on Desktop can be moved,
- Filemanager,
- Filemanager can do things,
- Panel, Toolbar, Top Menu

So saying that Mac Users won't like KDE is plain stupid, the same stupid way saying Windows users don't like KDE etc. There can also be people who do like GNOME, there is no problem. But we should clearly look for the superior Desktop solution and it should be even clear to you that KDE is technically FAR superior. It's so much superior that comparing KDE and GNOME is plain wrong. It's like comparing a Ferrari with an Austin Mini.

> I do feel that Gnome is more likely to be successful on
> the corporate workstation than KDE

I don't believe so. Even corporate people have eyes in their head and a brain they can use. When they spent some time into Linux and know more about the technical stuff and probably the two desktops they then will decide wisely. I recently had a conversation with someone who wanted to change his entire company (1200 Desktops) to GNOME but then they decided to use KDE after they figured out how messy GNOME really is.

> because there are less option to fiddle around with and it
> seems simplier to get things done

What things do you think they get done that simple ? I would know a couple of examples of the things you can do simplier on GNOME than e.g. KDE ? But ok be it like that, this still doesn't change the broken Framework issue which is basicly the all and everything for a Desktop. No matter how less options you have, no matter how clean you assume the desktop to be, no matter how polished or nice you find it yourself. It still won't change the broken junk inside it. As many people already explained (since they elaborated correctly) GNOME will take years (IF EVER) to reach quality of KDE.

Forget the ugly icons, forget the bazillion of Menu entries and forget all the tons of Options. These are all things you can change easily and quickly. Unfortunately you can't easily change the broken stuff in GNOME that quickly. I wish it would be possible but as sad and realistic it sounds, it won't happen.

> sure stock Gnome isn't as polished as KDE, but Ximian
> Gnome is. Gnome 2.6 looks like it might just Gnome that
> extra bit of polish that it needs as well.

Yeah but thre rest remains GNOME, the same incomplete and unfinished Framework. Ximian GNOME may be a name in the public, but new apps need to be developed as well and that's still the same problematic issue than using stock GNOME. You still deal with the problems I have described above.

We need a stable desktop, a desktop with good framework, nice applications and where we can be sure that rapid application development is possible. A Ximian GNOME won't change anything here.

> Computer users usually don't know much about computers, I
> can't imagine a customer trying to find and specific option
> here.

Excuse me, but why do these people want to use Linux then ? If they have no clue what they are doing they better head off using Windows. Every farmer can give help with Windows, every neighbour can and even every WalMart store can help these people in Windows related questions. Why do they want to bother with Linux then ?

New people unfamilar to computers make their first touch with Windows. They learn to use it, they using it fine and they strangely get their stuff done the way they like and Windows is overblown with configuration options.

Even my sister is far better in Microsoft Word than I ever was or ever will be (not to mention that I am not interested either). But you see that people as unexperienced they are are usually willing to learn and do it. They learn by mistakes and don't make them again the next time.

Every now and then my sister comes up to me and tells me that her printer doesn't work. Hell it's even easier for me as Administrator and even as long years of Linux user to fix her 1 second problem with the printer on Windows rather than on Linux. Windows is dead simple but yet full of configuration stuff. People not interested in config stuff won't fiddle with the things either.

Even cars, videorecorders, cellphones, pda's, dvd burners, mp3 players are getting more features and things. And when I see people talking about technical stuff they usually go for the things with many options because they think it's correct with their price.

Anyways you should clearly read my comments. All the options, icons and much menu entries you can IGNORE since these are things you can easily CHANGE. Changing all the stuff in KDE is far easier than fixing the broken Framework in GNOME.

> Yes people are willing to learn, but they are more worried
> aboyt getting their work done as fast as posible, less
> clicks, less options, just do what they need.

Ok and what WORK do these people get done with GNOME they can not get done with KDE ?

For my knowledge they can get the same work done with KDE as they would get done with GNOME. So far we hopefully agree.

Now let's get a look beyond the tunnel (having a tunnelview is kinda pointless here).

Say that person wants to get REAL work done. Say he or she want's to do some astrological stuff. Where will he get the software to get the work done ? GNOME doesn't offer such a software so he or she can't even start to work.

Say people come in #gnome every day complaining there is no CD burning application like K3b now how can they get their work done if the application is missing ?

Say people want to do presentation stuff like PowerPoint, where is the application on GNOME so these people can get the work done ?.

Say people want to do 3D stuff for their mechanical course, where do they get the application for GNOME ?

Say people want to do UML for their university course, where do they get that program for GNOME ? DIA ? Hell I am a practical example here that DIA is unusable to do a shite.

Now where is the software on GNOME to get exactly that work done ?. Looking over to KDE the software is existing already.

Ok I am not blaming GNOME for not having all this. NO. But I wanted to make you understand that a good Framework is required to guarantee rapid application development. Rapid application development means that the users do not need to wait 2 years until they get the work done, since they already have the software today to get the work done. And this software is in a way to be improved. They have no problems changing huge parts of their Code to fit the fixed Framework since the Framework on KDE is already in a very good condition. The developers concentrate on the fun stuff improving and echancing their applications rather than fixing stuff or get their app understanding the new changed API.

You know, a good Framework means that you can quickly develop programs. Programs that people can use to get serious work done.

I always wished GNOME would have such a great development Framework like KDE has but it sadly hasn't and this is what I like people to understand. There is no point blaming one desktop and favoriting another one just for the Icons of for the Themes (as this editorial shows) it matters more that we have a good framework for the future and guarantee that apps are being written in masses.

This is all I wanted to say, nothing more, nothing less. If you are not willing to understand this (or not able to understand either due to limited knowledge) then this is your problem not mine. I took quite a lot of time to explain these things to you. By now everyone else reading this should have understood the points.

Let me give you a view examples of what I think of being a broken framework:

a) When I implment new features but do it just half. Adding GStreamer to GNOME for example which is indeed a nice thing but adding it only to half of the apps and skipping the others is a bug.

b) Fixing half of the stuff in apps. Say you committ a patch that fixes 2 dialogs in Nautilus but leaves the others as they were 2 years before is imo a bug. Makes using the app become, well ugly.

c) Offering multiple ways to open a Window in GNOME is a bug. GTK+, GnomeUI, BonoboUI. This leads to inconsistency and total clutter.

d) Writing a new Fileselector but have the default apps use a mixture of old and New Fileselectors is imo a bug. By the way why should a developer waste time fixing all old and new Filedialogs ? If the stuff is properly written then you simply inherit the new Fileselector without noticing it. It's simply there. Here is a proof that not everything in GNOME 2.0 is re-written. Much of the stuff is simply ported from 1.x.

e) When copying files via Nautilus (say and you copy a subdir which includes MORE directories and files from that FTP to your Desktop and you get stuff like

(copying file 98 of 23)

Or get 0byte files copied from that FTP to your Desktop then this is a bug.

f) Gnomifying OpenOffice is an even bigger bug. The entire OpenOffice framework is based on the Staroffice Foundation Class (Their own Widgetset). Gnomifying all this is simply an idiotic task and leads to fragmentation in the code. Again they will do this work only hal. Only what you see will be changed not the rest. So the result is a mixture of old code and new changed User Experience.

g) Hardcoded UI is a bug (at least under GNOME), it leads no space for UI designers to fix all the stuff without code skills. Where should they start ? In the Hardcoded stuff ? In the *.glade stuff ? In the .xml stuff ?

h) Having all apps do their own bookmarks system is a bug, There is no central bookmarks solution. Same for Addressbooks etc.

i) When I call out for a bounty and have people called up to 'tweak and fiddle' Evolution support into the Panel Callendar then this is a bug and not a feature. A feature would be if I changed the Callendar Object so when I inherit it into other applications that all these apps will benefit from the Evolution support and not just one.

And yes what you write is indeed also a big problem (at least your text is partially right). A lot of undocumented API changes. A lot of undocumented changes itself.

E.g. I wrote a little Application which uses a GtkCombo I was in the assumption to use a good API from GTK and then one day they changed the Widget and marked this one DEPRECATED and this in a new App that I wrote.

The changes are quite huge and I feel quite frustrated having this one changed to adopt the new Widgets. It's not just trivial changes these changes I have to do are quite huge and will take me a couple of days. The days I usually have to stay motivated to do the work. Now instead of improving my application I need to fiddle around to remove the old stuff, go through 10 source files and remove the stuff. Not to mention that I also need to re-write huge chunks of code only to fix the stuff.

While the old GtkCombo allowed me to simply attach a GList to it (my 'History' function is based on a GList which contains 5 Listentries which have Data applied) I now need to create an entire TreeModell again and populate that Tree with these values.

What I do here is changing a well thought interface (which I spent hours to figure out before) into a new interface and what I do is tweak and fiddle the stuff in a way to make it fit there. Which then leaves other parts of my code get slightly unoptimal as I used to have in mind before.

Why so frustrated and why attacking my person ? Do you fear that I could be right and you not ? Your reply is far to ridiculous and only a try to publicly destroy my creditibility rather than a sign of willing to accept the critics as I write them (since they are right) and start discussion with the community and have these problems solved. People like you are more up to attack those who bring up constructive criticism and feedback rather than true willing to change the true things.

> What are you actually trying to say. Does every
> application need to add GStreamer? Why don't you specify
> precisely what features are not implemented and state
> where GNOME has stated officially or unofficially not to
> implement it.

Not every application needs to embedd GStreamer that's pure rubbish. But the audio stuff should and should do that correctly. Right now in GNOME we deal with direct Xine calls and GStreamer calls. Developer have been chosing Xine in many tools (Totem and Rhythmbox) due to stability reasons because GStreamer still is unfinished, no stable API and no general stability. They do still offer the posibility to include the GStreamer stuff but what benefits does it give when it locks up during playback or simply doesn't play back at all. Go and get a look in the code yourself id you don't trust my words. Let's continue with the new GMixer, it was hyped that it now supports the GStreamer stuff but yet it doesn't. When I select 'alsasink' in GConf-Editor then I would like to be able to Mix the alsa stuff and not get a dialog that the sound devices an not be found. The reason why it can not be found is it still expects the OSS emulation in Alsa to be active so it just mixes the OSS part of alsa but not the native part. I thought it uses GStreamer here, so I do assume it to use the right sinks and right devices to Mix. Just one example.

> Still short on specifics. If you are such a great software
> developer and you claim to have been working for GNOME but
> yet you have not been able to solve even one of the
> problems you whine about years on end.

The problem here is you can't simply sent in bugfixes or patches when your innerst tells you that this is plain wrong and needs to be re-done correctly. See it like a house where you continue glueing stuff into it. A bit here, a bit there a bit in another place and you see how the stuff you are doing makes no sense but yet you continue because you can't convince the other owners that it would be better to trash the entire house and start from scratch.

> Where are all the bug reports you have filed? Where are
> all the patches you are submitted that the GNOME 'people'
> have refused to commit. Please give us more facts, and
> soon.

They are either on or made their way in the Applications in case they got accepted. I know you are trying to pick here but you won't be successful. For further information you can look into ChangeLogs. But this isn't your point at all, you will reply and tell me that you wasn't able to find a shit (many others have tried this before). I think you should get out of your tunnelview and your evangelism here and start looking into the real problems. Guess why there aren't any changes in GNOME because people and developers fear to do these changes or raise constructive criticism because it ends in things like this. Ignorance, Elitism, Tunnelview and even worse Namecalling.

> How about you give an example of the clutter that this
> causes. Are you complaining that GTK+ has only one way to
> open a window, or that GnomeUI has only one way to open a
> window or that GTK, GnomeUI and BonoboUI altogether have
> three ways to open a window?

The problem here is interoperability with the rest of GNOME. Try opening a couple of applications on your GNOME desktop. Say one program written using GnomeUI, one written in GTK+ one written in BonoboUI. Now go to:

Desktop-Preferences -> Menus&Toolbars

And fiddle around with the values there. You will see that some programs imidiately change the Toolbar and Menu behaviour, some not, some change their appearance after they got opened and closed and some even do not react on these settings at all. Just one example only to satisfy your questions here.

Technically they are a pain to maintain too. Specially for UI people, those who go from app to app fixing all the paddings, Layout of buttons and widgets etc. There is a big difference if you use one GUI designer or one system to change all this or need to learn 3-4 different but common used ways to change all this.

It is problematic having hardcoded UI in the code (which requires that an UI expert needs to learn to programm to solve these things) or if you use GLADE (which can create *.glade files or simply embeddable code) or if you use BonoboUI with it's *.xml files. They are all totally differently, different attributes, different behaviour etc. And yet I do see people using all these things in their own apps over and over again. Sure core developers may use the correct way for their upcoming products but not the new developers who start working on their apps. They use GLADE to build the interface but forget or don't know that GLADE isn't aware of all the new DEPRECATED widgets or new widgets that have been introduced lately. Go and look yourself.

> just tells me that you don't know or understand sh*t about
> things in GNOME as you claim all the time. It also brings
> doubt your claimed knowledge about software development
> because I don't need to remind you of what happens during
> API changes such as the one going on in the FileSelector.

No I was more demonstrating how good the KDE framework for these kind of things are. They change the Object Fileselector one time (regardless what changes they do) and it's automatically inherit into other apps. While in GNOME they now offer 2 Fileselectors the old and the new one. Different API is a problem here but this is a sign that the stuff is simply an artifact from GTK 1 and GNOME 1 times. If it was a total rewrite as you want to make me believe then this would have been introduced far earlier.

What I also speak about is the consistent look of these Fileselectors. The new Fileselector now offers this stupid 'expander' widget where you first get a locationbar (at least some apps show this) and then need to press the expander to get the rest of the files shown. To much magic and to much 'usability experts' have made a huge mess once again for a simply shitty fileselector. Jesus we use Fileselectors of 20 years and longer they do what the name says showing files and directories where we can simply dive in and do the task. No magic techno stuff that yet requires 3 mouseclicks to actually do what I want.

> This one and all the rest of your 'examples' are just too
> funny. You have just gone to 'bugzilla' and copied things
> over.

No I didn't copied them but it's ok for me that you confirm these problems to exist. Now we have GNOME 2.6 in a couple of days and these problems are still there since GNOME 2.0 or even earlier who actually knows. You seriously want to go enterprise with these problems ? And when will they get fixed ? Is it even possible to fix these issues ?

> Unless you can show an official or unofficial policy
> from GNOME not to fix these issues, they are moot. Just
> because they are not fixed when you want does not make the
> framework broken.

As long these things are not fixed and even unknown whether they can be fixed at all - yes I do have the tendency to say that these things are broken. People who write a FTP client for GNOME use an alternative library to do these things since they can not reliably use the ones offered in the GNOME framework due to these errors. People writing a Webbrowser for example can't use the HTTP backend of gnome-vfs due it not to work reliable not doing redirections for URL's etc. Sure there are always bugs in such projects. I am the last person admitting that there aren't bugs. Every bigger project has a lot of them and this is natural and just the way it is.

But here are the fundamental problems I do see in GNOME. They spent to much time rewriting stuff over and over again and want to do everything the right way (excuse me, there isn't something as the right way, there is just one way and another way but the right way doesn't exist). You need to finish a project and then head over to the other one and make sure that with increasing version of GNOME that the stuff you offer to the people is less painful and usable.

Nautilus used to show signals of becoming a well not as crappy Filemanager as it used to be and now it has been changed into a Spatial Filemanager. This is a drastical change for the Users. While they have done such drastical changes in the behavior of Nautilus they forget to fix the other things due to lack of resources. Imo it would have been better fixing gnome-vfs and all the other tiny bits and bytes rather than re-writing stuff that has been written before and has shown signal that they work. This is going over and over in GNOME and still no sign or signal where we as users can see (look here the evolution of the software is finished, we can have it stay that way and lets continue working on other bits). No they are busy throwing over concepts and re-write them over and over again. And all the developers outside who work on their own software need to play catchup to have their app following the new changes. Instead doing the funstuff to continue improving their app they stick into all these messy changes.

And hey, this is just my very own opinion. That's why I do fullheartly welcome the Quality and Assurance team in KDE. They will clearly signal the developers 'hey what are you doing now ?'.

> I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of seeing all these
> verbose spillage of fud from you every time a GNOME
> article shows up.

Whatever you think. There are people outside who agree with me there are people outside who agree with you. That's life but I do see a reason here to make people understand these things before writing editorials like these. A good solid framework and nice applications are important.

If people come over and over again with their counted Applications they like to use and others come over with the same old junk over and over. The same way I come over with the same stuff to make people understand the problems here.

GNOME has copied a lot of stuff from MacOSX and Windows in the past months and years. Sadly the wrong bits were copied.

A last thing to add from my side that people do not think about. KDE already offers all these things already. Two years ago when I used KDE 3.x I already noticed a lot of stuff in KDE that were missing and still are missing in GNOME.

I do know that one day someone will fix the broken gnome-vfs. But when ? As long as these things are not working properly people use other libraries to solve the solutions they need to solve. GNOME may (or may not) get all these things one day. Say in 2 years by now. But KDE had exactly all these things 2 years ago already. There is a development difference of 4 years between both Desktop solutions. While GNOME is catching up to what KDE offered 2 years ago KDE continues to quickly expand in all areas and the applications it offers are growing as well and new applications can easily be developed in a short timeframe.

These things you should take into account to when doing such editorials. Not just looking at fancy icons and compare two screenshots. I would say the same things about GNOME if GNOME were in the position to be much enchanced over KDE. Although even KDE is lacking a bunch of things that I would see more improved.

- Split out applications in own Modules like in GNOME rather than having all put into kdelibs, kdebase, kdeutils etc.
- More clean layout of includes in the includes directory like GNOME does (by default and not per distro excuse during install).
- Make sure the .po files come with the module rather than a separate huge translated tarball.

I here again do like the way GNOME does it. As you see neither of both are perfect.

M$ having a hand... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355208)

You know, what? I have a feeling that M$ is having a hand in this GNOME [cough],[cough] mess. I have always thought that the Open-source community is very talented to the extent of being able toavoid some [or all] issues that are mentioned. Eehh, wait!

Disclaimer: I do not know what I am talking about.

My CAD 0.02.

Why WG? (4, Interesting)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355065)

WHAT WG was created not because a specific developer wanted to do it's own thing, but because the majority of W3C members aren't browser developers. They're plug-in developers. Some people within the W3C have even stated that the browser is dead. This kind of environment is openly hostile to the further development of existing browser-based standards. The only logical course of action in this situation would be for the various browser developers to form their own standards group, which is what happened.

I am no w3c expert by any means, but that's an interesting statement and strong point. Too bad Microsoft won't jump ship as well, as I don't feel Opera and Mozilla have the marketshare and clout to pull this off in terms of setting defacto standards.


Re:Why WG? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355103)

Parent wrote: Some people within the W3C have even stated that the browser is dead.

The W3C has been working on this - the "creation of a new language designed specifically for Internet computing" - since their original darpa grant in in 1995 [] . Tim-Berners Lee's web site [] says he still acts as an advisor to the company that's continuing that project.

Wait... (0)

dasmegabyte (267018) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355224)

What Wig?

This is quite possibly the dumbest acronym I've ever seen.

Re:Why WG? (4, Interesting)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355241)

From what I've read about Longhorn, I suspect that Microsoft is one of the groups opposed to "a backwards-compatible HTML-based standard". They want to replace the browser with new tools built into Longhorn that only they control. See any of these Google links [] for more details.

Re:Why WG? (5, Informative)

hixie (116369) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355265)

Actually Microsoft was one of the few groups in favour of work like this at the recent workshop (they didn't want scripting involved, but apart from that were in favour with extending HTML rather than going down the XForms or other new language route).

Re:Why WG? (2, Interesting)

binkzz (779594) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355242)

I don't feel Opera and Mozilla have the marketshare and clout to pull this off in terms of setting defacto standards.

If Opera and Mozilla come up with a new standard with new useful capabilities that IE won't support, this is the way to increase their marketshare.

Re:Why WG? (1)

vigilology (664683) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355410)

Since when were Microsoft on any ship but their own?

Konqueror (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355066)

I think that i would be if better if konqueror/khtml people joined the group, as for
instance khtml is representing safari too.

Re:Konqueror (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355230)

I think you'll find that Safari represents KHTML now.

Apple are a Real Actual Company with money. Konq is part of a dinky open-source project.

KHTML is being used by more people in Safari now, and that's KHTML's future.

No SVG? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355068)

Obviously, I didn't RTFA and am just knee-jerking to the blurb. But does this mean that SVG support will be held back in any way on Mozilla and Opera? That would be quite a shame...

Re:No SVG? (2, Informative)

kwench (539630) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355105)

There's the Mozilla SVG Project [] .

I suppose we'll end having browsers that support everything from HTML to XAML and Flash and SVG.

Re:No SVG? (0)

mandalayx (674042) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355115)

+5 Honesty

Re:No SVG? (5, Informative)

MadMoose (23590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355131)

Certain parts of SVG - ie. all the cool vector graphics bits - will probably go into Mozilla once it's ready and if it doesn't impact the rest of Mozilla too much speedwise and footprintwise

Other parts of SVG will (probably/hopefully) never get into Mozilla. Like raw socket support: []

Ian Hickson mentions other crappy things about SVG in his blog (which I'll be nice and not link to from /. - learn to google)

Re:No SVG? (4, Interesting)

hixie (116369) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355185)

No, it doesn't mean SVG won't be supported. SVG 1.0 is just the thing for vector graphics, and it fits right into the HTML world if you use XBL, for instance. (Although admittedly that won't be backwards compatible and won't work in IE!)

Mozilla already supports a bunch of SVG (a pretty useful 20%, last I heard -- and they're working on the ever popular Gradients as we speak). Safari and Opera don't do SVG yet, but at least at Opera it is something we are looking at doing. (It's very popular with mobile vendors, and, well, they are our main customers, so...)

Re:No SVG? (1)

Cambo (85696) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355298)

If this stuff was implemented in SVG it would be cool, but unfortunatly SVG has become too unweildy... The latest draft of the spec has support for SOCKETS [] ?!??! WTF???!?!?! you don't need that! SVG should remain a presentational language. Stick to graphics and leave the rest to other protocols/components. There's a good post on this here [] (I think she's an Opera developer but I'm not sure)

Currently the SVG spec is 719 pages long... TWICE THAT OF CSS 2.1... and alot of browsers don't even have support for that yet. Not to mention that SVG doesn't even have decent support for more than one line of text even.

all I can say is K.I.S.S []


Backward compatibility for what? (1)

nvivo (739176) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355070)

I think other companies are right in movin on and letting backward compatibility behind. This is a new kind of app. Backward compatibility will bring complexity to the implementation, and probably there will be a lot of things that could be done better but won't to mantain compatibility...

And if it's right that W3C rejected it, they don't have support of almost anybody right?

Re:Backward compatibility for what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355086)

The W3C had a project for "the creation of a new language designed specifically for Internet computing" since 1995. This article [] explains the results of the project. It was pretty cool. Wish it was open-sourced, though.
In 1995, DARPA gave a grant to MIT to develop the "next generation of communication and computation technology." Over the next three years, this research, conducted by some of the leading computing experts in the industry, produced two key deliverables. The first was a recommendation to establish what became known as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The second was the creation of a new language designed specifically for Internet computing, which they called Curl.

Internet Explorer says... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355072)

Immona live FOREVER!!!!!

HTML is not for web apps... (4, Interesting)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355076)

As more and more business move to 'web-deployed' business software I predict a big departure from HTML for web applications.

Joe public user doesnt want to know about "You cant use drag and drop anymore, the browser doesnt support it".

There will be a migration to technologies like Flash/Actionscript where you can get the rich client experience in the browser. Users will demand this, execs will demand this and development companies/open source groups will provide this.

Having said that, I have looked at XAML and there doesnt seem to be a reason why it could not be interpreted to build a flash GUI. Perhaps this is the true of this effort too, but to include hypertext in the title indicates a degress of shortsightedness IMHO.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (5, Interesting)

hixie (116369) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355132)

Drag and drop is indeed one of the things that I think HTML should allow. We'll probably be extending HTML to allow for drag and drop in WHATWG.

Anything else? :-)

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355270)

I'm a drag 'n drop man myself, I learned the skill from Win3.1.

The 300 people I work with are not drag 'n drop people. The idea of picking up an Access database file and dropping it on the Excel icon is totally alien to them... I borrowed a set of auto-complete JS functions to put in my latest web app. The users were gob-smacked by this too.

I cannot see the need for drag 'n drop functions in web applications. Sorry.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (2, Insightful)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355344)

Dont get bogged down in drag and drop, it was just an example.

There are lots of things that are difficult to implement in what is essentially a documentation format. CGI was a hack and it never really improved much from there.

Users of applications expect certain things, responsiveness being up quite high on the list. Over a congested pipe it is not always acceptable to wait a couple of seconds while your browser refreshes your page with you menu expanded rather than collapsed!

Yes, I know there is a solution in Javascript but having worked with various web developers (I tend to focus on the back-end, business logic development myself) I know that Javascript is pretty much the #1 cause for complaint. Especially when it is used to provide complex functionality that should really be a part of the client container (or the browser in this case).

Anyone who has ever sat in a room with a client who is requesting features that the browsers can not easily provide should understand where I am coming from.

To the client (especially one that has seen a flash based web app interface), "The browser cant do that" doesnt cut it.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (1)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355285)

Multiple document interfaces is another one that comes to mind, there are probably a few (hundred) others if I sat down and thought about it.

Basically, anything that is currently done with client scripting languages (jscript for example).

Java applets come close, Flash has come closer, I think the next one will be the winner, and its not far away.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355137)

As more and more business move to 'web-deployed' business software I predict a big departure from HTML for web applications.

I predict that as more and more business move to 'web-deployed' business software the more their wet dream of an annuity will collapse as businesses insist on the one time payment model, or just downloading the free version and installing that.

Joe public user doesnt want to know about "You cant use drag and drop anymore, the browser doesnt support it".

Why is Joe public user playing Solitaire over the web?

. . .you can get the rich client experience in the browser.

Arrrrrrrgh! He said the words. Run away! Run away!

Users will demand this, execs will demand this and development companies/open source groups will provide this.

Do you, by any chance, work for/on "rich client experience in the browser"?


Re:HTML is not for web apps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355139)

Flash is not an open source standard. There is no viable development tool on Linux.

You must be talking about SVG. But most users don't have SVG viewers.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (4, Insightful)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355161)

We've had the opportunity and the ability to deliver "rich client experience in the browser" for five years (Flash, Java, DHTML, ActiveX), and users/execs haven't demanded it yet. Why do you think anything will change?

The killer app of the web is distributed services, not interfaces. Porn, Ebay, Amazon, online banking and bill payment, media channels, not Office knockoffs or Flash games. The need for richer client experiences is in developer's minds, not users.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (1)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355264)

not Office knockoffs

This is true currently, but it is set to change. Web based deployment is excellent for non-tech business in that there is very little support on the desktop (no rollouts etc).

The Java applet model was designed to solve this problem, but it failed. However, flash is fareing much better.

Re:HTML is not for web apps... (3, Interesting)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355490)

You are so right. Look at the current uses of the internet: E-Mail, Instant Messaging, HTML Web, Games (a la Counter-Strike/Q3A), File Transfers (Ala FTP and P2P) and some upcoming technologies like VoIP.

There are a few extras like Internet Radio and Video that typically are hung off one of the previously mentioned technologies, usually the the web. And there is a fair amount of crossover between things. IM has included chat video conferencing, Games have had live chat for a while, Some games even had integrated email like tribes2. Web forums are something like email or IM. One can transfer files via IM. Most web brosers are ftp clients.

The ones that want to provide a rich client experience, are the ones that are trying to setup a rental model for software. If one can only access say thier office suite from a web browser then they get locked in to a rental model. The rental model has been predicted longer than Linux has been around, and if anything, we are moving to FOSS.

Flash is not for webapps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355174)

Flash is an animation format. It's place in a website is the same place that images have: a small embedded box on a site.

It's discriminatory, it's crap, and it's simply not a website.

XAML (-1, Offtopic)

smallguy78 (775828) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355081)

Great, yet more web standards to learn. I don't put a great deal of faith into Mozilla, whose w3c support history has been less than rosey. I was under the impression XAML is to be used primarily for laying out winforms, rather than as an new alternative to the tag.

Re:XAML parent is flamebait?) (4, Interesting)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355184)

Smells of troll?

But Mozilla has been VERY strict at implementing standards, and following W3C published standards. In fact its central and core to the organisation.

The introduction of Mozilla (and to an extent Opera) was instrumental in W3C ditichign its own browser efforts, as they felt that Mozilla's support for the standards was good enough to use as a reference browser.

Mozilla DOES extend some of the spec especially in CSS. This is allowed by the w3c, provided they are labelled as extesions (Mozilla uses the _moz prefix). And as some of these extenstions are incorporated into appropriate spec (CSS3 and opacity for example), Mozilla deprecates the extensions and provide support for the spec.

What the W3c frowns upon is not the addition of spec, but breaking exisiting spec. If a browser does not implement a spec, it should grafefully degrade. Mozilla does that well. Bugs not withstanding, Mozilla by feature does NOT break exisitng standards to be incompatible with standards developed pages.

Please explain WHAT you mean by Mozillas support of w3c is less than rosy. I am sure many others would like to know too.

Re:XAML parent is flamebait?) (1)

smallguy78 (775828) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355255)

You've obviously never used the 4.x range of Netscape, which most web developers battled with for years, to provide work arounds for broken tables, css, and (not w3c) nice javascript features such as resize bugs. This was when IE5 and 5.5 were out, which implemented CSS nicely, started up in less than 5 seconds - reasons why it became the dominant browser: it was and still is faster. Even firefox and its claims of speed is still slower.

Re:XAML parent is flamebait?) (2, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355453)

Netscape isn't mozilla, Mozilla looked at the 4.x range of netscape code and chucked most of it. Any history of Mozilla says this. Netscape 4.x sucked, and most people will admit it. Netscape lost the browser wars for two reasons, MS shoved them out, and Netscape 4 really was bad.

Mozilla isn't netscape, the New Netscape Browsers is just a rebranded Mozilla. Mozilla started over, which is why it took so long to get up to speed.

Re:XAML parent is flamebait?) (1)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355469)

You've obviously never used the 4.x range of Netscape, which most web developers battled with for years, to provide work arounds for broken tables, css, and (not w3c) nice javascript features such as resize bugs.

Netscape 4 is NOT mozilla.. read up.. get the facts.. then come back This was when IE5 and 5.5 were out, which implemented CSS nicely,

really? ever looked at the situation now? IE has awful bugs in CSS, breaks standards and is a pain....

started up in less than 5 seconds - reasons why it became the dominant browser: it was and still is faster. Even firefox and its claims of speed is still slower.

IE became dominant partly because it was bundled

IE is faster coz its loaded with windows

check your facts, then come back

Re:XAML (3, Interesting)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355322)

Great, yet more web standards to learn.

I'm so sorry! Perhaps we should halt all further development on the web? It'd certainly make my life a great deal easier, although very, very dull.

I don't put a great deal of faith into Mozilla, whose w3c support history has been less than rosey.

In what way exactly has Mozilla's w3c support been less than "rosey"? Portable Network Graphics? CSS2-3? Ever heard of "MOSe" (Mozilla Opera Safari extensions)? They're the browsers that actually support the latest w3c standards - try doing alpha-blended PNGs on IE. Try doing CSS3 on IE. If you want to see just how rosy the MOSe future looks, check out the Zen Garden [] , and in the meantime consider this: what do the w3c use as their de facto reference browser? (hint: Mozilla)

I was under the impression XAML is to be used primarily for laying out winforms, rather than as an new alternative to the tag.

You were wrong. XAML is similar to XUL (XML UI Language), or, if you like, dotNET. Just as you can use UI elements in a dotNET Windows App, you can use the same (well, similar) UI elements in an ASP.NET (web) app.

Re:XAML (1)

smallguy78 (775828) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355454)

And presumably the XAML definition file will be rendered as HTML by engine, unless ms plan to build in a XAML parser into IE (probably quite likely). Clearing up points 1 and 2which were not intended as trolling/flame bait, 1 was in reference to the wide range of standards that have been implmented badly by each browser producer, including IE, and 2 until recently has been a correct statement - looks at netscape 4 and 6. It's only since mozilla's own browser has been released that we've started to see quality, the blame perhaps can be pointed at netscape rather than mozilla.

Web Standards are USER defined. (5, Interesting)

Whitecloud (649593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355087)

This is being done outside of the W3C, with the hope of getting a viable alternative to Longhorn's XAML available soon

Okay, Microsoft are trying to develop some standards. If history says anything about how the web has evolved its that the users define the standard. If it works, we use it. XML [] works. Macromedias Flash app [] is a defacto standard, created outside the W3C. If it works, we use it. Suns Java [] is pretty popular too. A lot of stuff is created outside the W3C, it all works, if its good we install it. simple really.

This is great news. (5, Insightful)

gusnz (455113) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355092)

An alliance is exactly what they should be doing. Well, ideally it would be under the auspices of the W3C, but it's a great start.

The reason is XAML. Microsoft has basically thrown in the towel with its (X)HTML rendering engine (the last release, IE6, was three years ago, and the differences from IE5.5 were not huge -- it still doesn't support stuff like translucent PNGs and much of CSS2). When Longhorn is released, expect a massive push towards the use of their proprietry XAML for web application deployment tied with their .NET development tools.

If Mozilla, Opera and hopefully Safari (which shares a few key developers with Mozilla and is implementing the Mozilla XUL box model in places) can push open standards and hopefully get a combined ~20-30% desktop share in the next 5 years before Longhorn is released and becomes semi-ubiquitous on the desktop, they'll be a large thorn in MS's side. Major businesses won't be able to ignore them, and with their focus on backwards-compatible specifications that expand upon existing CSS/JS/DOM technology and degrade well in older browsers (unlike XAML), they'll be the new default for client-side developers.

So start pushing those copies of Firefox onto friends' computers once v0.9 is released in a week or so with its auto-update notification. The more people who are aware that "web browser" does not equal "the blue 'e' icon", the better...

Re:This is great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355130)

Since Safari uses Konqueror's rendering engine (KHTML), it's very likely that Apple will be involved as well. The Konq developers are very into standards compliance.

Re:This is great news. (1)

zonix (592337) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355371)

Well said!

The more people who are aware that "web browser" does not equal "the blue 'e' icon", the better...

Recently I've encountered individuals who believe "the Internet" is "the blue 'e' icon". They don't even know what a browser is? Sad.


Failure forseen. (5, Insightful)

deragon (112986) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355093)

Mozilla and Opera creating new unoffical standards? If IE does not implement them, they will be simply ignored. I cannot forsee business implementing web services designed for these standards which will only be working for Mozilla and Opera users. What is the market share for the two? 5%?

Its time for goverments to step in and force standards. The Internet must remain open and interoperability is essential.

Re:Failure forseen. (2, Insightful)

areve (724106) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355112)

"If IE does not implement them, they will be simply ignored." I agree to some extent but it doesn't stop people supporting mozilla now. We may end up coding to versions of everything one for IE or one for Mozilla like in the days when netscape 4 and IE4 were popular. I for one would rather have a site work in the cross platform mozilla. (mac/windows/linux) than only in IE which I guess will remain windows only. As linux takes more of the desktop share developers will have to support it. I don't use linux desktop much but I can't tell my customers to switch OS. i can give them Mozilla on a CD to install though.

Re:Failure forseen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355496)

You can get IE on mac too.

Re:Failure forseen. (4, Insightful)

hixie (116369) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355163)

How would goverments "force standards"? If I want to write a Web browser that doesn't support HTML, why shouldn't I? Are you saying goverments should make Flash illegal?

I agree that if IE doesn't implement new standards, then they will just be ignored. However, the WHATWG things are designed to be easily implemented using HTCs so in theory you can still use them with IE6 once we have some non-binary HTCs written to support them. How well that will go down with authors has yet to be seen.

Re:Failure forseen. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355194)

...goverments should make Flash illegal?

Now that's a great idea :-)

Re:Failure forseen. (2, Insightful)

CrystalChronicles (706620) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355178)

What market share did Macromedia have when they came up with Flash? What market share did Sun have when they came up with Java? You gotta start somewhere.

If you want your technology to become popular, one way to do is to force it upon peoples computers. The other is to make something good thats better than the rest and will draw web developers and end users to dl it on their own free will.

Re:Failure forseen. (1)

kris (824) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355274)

Can I have a proper browser inside my Internet Explorer? For example, Mozilla as an Active-X applet running transparently inside my MSIE?

Re:Failure forseen. (1)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355423)

Mozilla and Opera will implement them, and then sites that see how it's easier to code for them will do so, and will recommend users do so as well. Then, Microsoft will ship XAML, and will find other standards are already more prevalant.

Go opera! (0, Flamebait)

maggern (597586) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355108)

Opera is a great webbrowser, so this is good news. The browser market - as any other - needs compitition. I'll be damned if Microsoft is going to take it over completly!

They need Google (5, Insightful)

tdvaughan (582870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355110)

Google would be a hugely useful partner in this effort. If they implemented future versions of GMail according to these standards rather than XAML/Avalon their dominance in the internet would make the difference between success and getting steamrollered by MS when Longhorn comes out.

Re:They need Google (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355128)

You stupid, google will hurt itself if it follows the idiots in mozilla and opera. Mozilla guys were talking about isolating Microsoft, they are going to be isolated in the end. Only few slashdot idiots will cheer for them, the rest of the world will ignore them.

Re:They need Google (2, Insightful)

Segway Ninja (777415) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355252)

This would probably just lead to people getting annoyed at Google, and ignoring GMail in favour of the MS-Branded Hotmail.

The problem with getting these standards implemented would be that Microsoft wouldn't support them, and your avewrage user isn't going to go out of their way to get Mozilla just to 'visit one site'

To your average user, the "benifits" of using internet explorer is that it is there when you start. Most of the world -does- run on windows.

It seems good to them that Interent Explorer will conveniently update itself, to keep their computer 'with-the-times' of what's on the internet, here and now.

Whatsmore, most people don't even know that Mozilla exists. While a few people will have a hazy memory of Netscape, before MS really held the reigns, Mozilla is a new and foerign concept to them.

People will always go with what they trust, and from what I've seen of some people, they fear downloading anything at all from the internet because of viruses, or hackers, or both. Now, with these 'possible threats', is your average user going to consider using this thing they've never heard of? Realistically, probably not.

The use of a specifically non-IE site would annoy the general public, and would push them to seek alternatives. An alternative to GMail isn't hard to find, even if it doesn't have the same amount of space. Why, there's that free hotmail link right there when you start internet explorer... That would do.

While I agree it could work, I think that realistically it's an unlikely event. People trust MS, and they use it because there is no effort to make it go. It'd be nice if that stratergy worked, but I think Google would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that.

XAML (5, Interesting)

kwench (539630) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355117)

I had a quick look at XAML and it looked quite straightforward and simple.

So... besides XAML coming from Micro$oft and aiming at being yet another WWW-defacto-standard, what's bad with it?

Re:XAML (2, Insightful)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355199)

XMAL is proprietry to MS, and that means a big thing.

Fortunately there is already XUL which is working, stable and in use. XUL is as open as it can be.

however the good thing is the difference between the models shoudl not be too great, and using XSLT stylesheets it might be possibel to make cross platform web apps yet.

Re:XAML (1, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355211)


Because of Microsoft's pure dominance and Mono-based XAML plugins for Mozilla, it will be able to reach a lot more people than anything Moz/Opera could come up with.

There really isn't a point in creating yet another standard. Working on getting a single one to work across everything would be a big boon to everybody, but it seems Moz/Opera are both sick of following in IE's wake.

Re:XAML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355219)

It's not 'yet another standard'. It's an attempt to REPLACE the web with a new system, now that microsoft has achieved market dominance. It's not just 'embrace and extend' -- it's worse.

We do want this in standards body at some point (5, Informative)

hixie (116369) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355120)

The article is misleading. There isn't a "rift" between Mozilla/Opera and the W3C, indeed Mozilla and Opera are very active members of the W3C and were both present and actively participating in the recent Web Applications workshop.

At the moment this group is basically innovating extensions to HTML, for which you need a lot more flexibility than a standards organisation would provide. Once the proposals have reached a mature point we intend to submit these proposals to a standards organisation (whether it is W3C, IETF, ECMA, or another is yet to be determined, but note that the W3C have a policy that says we would not be allowed to say if we were planning on submitting this work to the W3C).

I expect the W3C to start work on the non-backwards-compatible alternatives to WHATWG work, such as creating an XForms/SVG "uberspec" or a new language or something, and when that happens I'm sure Opera and Mozilla will want to be taking part.

All of which is explained on, but since when has research had anything to do with journalism, eh? ;-)

Re:We do want this in standards body at some point (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355181)

Fuck, why the hell is it ok for mozilla and opera to work outside the W3C and leave other browsers behind? W3C is there for making sure that everybody has equal access to the same standards. If these two browsers support and implement the standards and then submit them to the W3C, then what do you think will happen? W3C will either accept or reject the proposals. If they accept they will risk being labeled as anti-Microsoft, which idiots like you have no problem with, but the world will be ok with Microsoft going alone in this field and make W3C irrelevant, since W3C effectively will turn into a slashdot, biased against the Microsoft. Many windows users will not tolerate this, Microsoft and many other companies will ditch W3C.

W3C is relevant today, because Microsoft supported its standards. It could easily develop its own standard and implement that one. There is lots of bullshit that IE is not standard-complaint, but that's pretty much bullshit. The W3C in fact created the worst standards in the history, and yet continue to receive credit for its bullshit. I think W3C should be irrelevant, and we should really have a kick-ass web application development standard, and only Microsoft can do that. Anti-Microsoft people will hold us back. For example mozilla group doesn't implement many javascript stuff just to be able to make Mozilla work on linux the same way it does on windows. So screw Mozilla, Opera. They will become irrelevant soon, mozilla wanted this though, since they were actively trying to isolate microsoft in a stupid manner. I am glad they are progressing on that one. I support Microsoft on this one 100%. Mozilla and opera have been mean too much recently, we don't have space for such slashdot type of idiots in the IT market.

pateNTdead eyecon0meter kode updated (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355123)

to include 'workarounds' for robbIE's whoreabully infactdead PostBlock censorship devise. isn't that something?

this stuff is unbreakable, & wwworks on/in several (more than 3) dimensions.

from a post meant to be titled:

unprecedented evile nearly disempowered, forever?
(score: mynuts won:-) previously PostBlocked(tm) material reposted)

by a disorganized rag-tag team of a few billion near nobodys, using what was available to them, which was almost nothing?

& just who are some of unprecedented evile's local representative(s)?:

The contract was awarded to Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, over two competing contractors, Lockheed Martin and Computer Sciences (a veritas (cess)pool of evile stock markp FraUDsters). Several industry executives and analysts said that the award surprised them and that Accenture had widely been considered the outside candidate.

The award also brought controversy. Accenture is incorporated in Bermuda, and some critics attacked the idea of awarding a contract so valuable and important to national security to a company with its headquarters outside the United States.

After Accenture was named, Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, suggested the company took advantage of an uneven playing field to win the contract over Lockheed Martin and Computer Sciences.

"If companies truly want to contribute to our nation's security, they can pay their fair share of taxes. If they want a slice of the American pie, they had better help bake it," he said in a statement.

A spokesman for Accenture said that the company paid United States taxes.

Representative Richard E. Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, also questioned the award.

"This decision is outrageous," he said, in a statement. "The Bush administration has awarded the largest homeland security contract in history to a company that has given up its U.S. citizenship and moved to Bermuda. The inconsistency is breathtaking."

the stock markup FraUD/softwar gangster payper liesense hostage grab 'business plan' is looking a little hapless now?

fauxking billyonerrors. sheesh.

lookout bullow. tell 'em robbIE?

all is not lost.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators.... the returns are immeasurable/infinite.

see you there?

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily (forever, if we had some ept) been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down (like with fuddle's phonIE corepirate nazi bouNTy hunter scam). If you think this is unfair, we just don't care.

WHATGW... (1, Funny)

Epistax (544591) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355129)

... I read that as WHATWJD. And the answer (of course) is smote things.

Re:WHATGW... (-1, Offtopic)

larien (5608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355231)

I assume you mean Jesus and he never smote anything; that was daddie's (i.e. God's) job (although mainly in the Old Testament).

If you make it WHATWGWBD you're probably right.

Interesting... (3, Interesting)

dncsky1530 (711564) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355136)

I wonder how this will work with Opera's plans [] for an IPO?
For those who don't know:
XForms [] :XForms provides a richer, more secure, more reliable, and presentation independent way of handling interactive Web transactions.
I made a quick xml page [] , with the source being here [] , just to show some people who don't know. Please note that in the example I used css to make the page look like something, this is technically incorrect []
Some other XML technologies []

Are you stupid ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355141)

W3C do NOT create standards, they create "reccomendations"

big difference
even on their site the stress this, yet people seem to ignore it and believe what they want no matter how wrong it is

Re:Are you stupid ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355276)

From the w3c:

"The World Wide Web Consortium was created in October 1994 to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability."

Call that whatever you want. I call it a standards body.

Re:Are you stupid ? (2, Informative)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355278)

Nor is IETF known for making tons of "standards", they publish "requests for comments". (81 STDs, not even all of them real, vs. 3542 RFCs, though not all of those are "real" either...)

Really, the argument that W3C doesn't create "standards" is pretty weak. They just chose to call their standards "recommendations" just not to annoy anyone.

To me, it's a standard if a) there's a comprehensive specification, preferrably from one authoritative source and b) everyone else decides to follow that specific specification, even if some follow it better than others.

No matter what W3C says, you could call W3C's Recommendations de-facto standards, just like you could call a RFC-specified (but not STD-level) protocol "standardized". True, they're not strictly standardized by any major standardization bodies, but who cares? The nature of the Internet has always been to rely on flexible, community-created specifications rather than expecting commitees to work on the things for ages.

Open source driving inovation. (0)

acomj (20611) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355147)


I work at a company that rolled out a web app that was "ie" only. Made all of us sick (especially since there are a lot of us that only have unix workstations). We've tried accessing the page with mozilla but it must be some activeX controls that are preventing us from using the page.

Open source should be taking the lead on many things and this is a good start. Even without IE support out of the box, if these standards are significantly better, web apps will be written to use these standards and the browsers are mostly compatable, companiieswill install them (they're free!). Our company bent over backwords to get us IE access for timecards on our unix workstations.

I just hope these standards are fully implimented, unlike ccs2 and xhtml which have been around for a while and don't seem to be fully supported. Its hard to tell which browser supports what nowdays.

Re:Open source driving inovation. (1)

bwy (726112) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355222)

What is even more sickening is when you're a web developer and your boss makes you develop a new app that is IE only. The developer loses the argument 99 times out of 100 too.

morons form group to bring back gnu online dating (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355150)

just kidding?

i wanna... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355154)

<co_cool^_^> i wanna stik my penus in u......
<co_cool^_^> hai asl...
<co_cool^_^> ctc pls......................
<co_cool^_^> hai...
<co_cool^_^> iam 16 m jkt indonesia
<co_cool^_^> i hot 4 seksy chating pls.......
<co_cool^_^> pls.....
<co_cool^_^> hai.......
<co_cool^_^> cmon ne1 home?????????
<co_cool^_^> ne1????????
<co_cool^_^> bai.............

Bash (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355157)

t0rbad> so there i was in this hallway right
BlackAdder> i believe i speak for all of us when i say...
BlackAdder> IM SICK OF YOU
BlackAdder> IN FACT
*** t0rbad sets mode: +b BlackAdder*!*@*.*
*** BlackAdder has been kicked my t0rbad ( )
t0rbad> so there i was in this hallway right
CRCError> right
heartless> Right.
r3v> right

I don't get it (2, Interesting)

wheezer (50418) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355170)

Now Opera has been known for ages for being pretty anti-XForms, mostly because integration of standards such as XForms/SVG would bloat the browserfootprint to such an extent that a lot of mobile device manufacturers might start looking for a different browser - you can basically script together a viable Word alternative using a little PHP, a lot of XForms and SVG today, but instead we are seeing another fork off into a separate direction by a new web-related splinter cell.

It's a shame to see this development as XForms is a really neat standard that exists today - anyone with a engineering background certainly knows how useful it can be at times to can backwards-compatibility in favor of allout innovation.

Re:I don't get it (2, Interesting)

markbirbeck (736497) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355234)

> Now Opera has been known for ages for being pretty anti-XForms, mostly because integration
> of standards such as XForms/SVG would bloat the browser footprint to such an extent that a
> lot of mobile device manufacturers might start looking for a different browser ...

That's a good point, although it's interesting that at the recent Web Applications workshop [] the guys from Opera conceded that the only 'extra' piece you needed to add to a standards-based web browser, in order to implement XForms Basic, was XPath. And that can hardly be described as 'bloat'!

Re:I don't get it (1)

pldms (136522) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355511)

Yes, I don't really understand Opera's objection to XForms. Any browser with XML, DOM, Javascript and HTML form support contain the basic capabilities for XForms.

One legitimate complaint is that XForms isn't backwards compatible; however as I've just completed some work using XForms and I'm currently dealing with the mess of javascript and html that complex forms currently require ... well, screw backwards compatibility it this case.

Backwards...compatible. (1)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355182)

Backwards compatible isn't the answer, in my opinion. Just do like they've always done - support both standards until everyone migrates to the new one. If we tried to make everything backwards-compatible, we'd still be dealing with people who need tables emulated, since their browser doesn't handle them - No offense, Lynx users.

Another Standard?! (3, Interesting)

orangeguru (411012) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355202)

As a developer I don't ***** care who is inventing which standard anymore.

The promise that HTML was going to be a simple and independent language/tool is long broken.

With every new standard and browser development gets harder, testing and debugging longer.

For years now every bigshot has been talking about standards - but true implementation is far off.

HTML has mutated over the years - not properly developed.

If Opera & Mozilla try to force new stuff on developers - they will only get ignored even quicker. Web development is mostly based on IE6 - and nothing else.

Although I love and use Opera (and a bit Firefox here and there) - IE6 development brings in the money. And as a small fry I can't afford NOT to follow the money.

Defining standards? (1)

Agret (752467) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355277)

Instead of everyone branching off and making their own standards everyone should try to make these features cross-browser for better support. I don't want to have to use Internet Explorer to do my banking with an app made with the XAML then having to change over to Firefox to check my email using the WHATWG application. I think Applications should stay as programs and web browsers should stay as web browsers. The OS is where applications run, not the browser.

W3C proving increasingly unable to *do* anything (3, Interesting)

the endless (412967) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355279)

It's about time someone tried to circumvent the W3C.

Honestly, the timescales the W3C are working on now are a joke. CSS3 has been in development since 2000 and is still nowhere near completion. XHTML 2.0 has been in development since August 2002, has already suffered from having its mission statement rewritten without announcement, and is, frankly, a bit crap. They don't even make use of XLink, but instead decided to write their own linking specification from scratch.

In short, the W3C has become a dinosaur. It takes far too long for them to get around to do anything, and it seems riddled with political jostling between both its members and its different working groups.

I think it's time someone else took over. The W3C only really works because the public allows it to - after all, the W3C isn't an official standards body so it's "standards" aren't really standards anyway. If someone else can do a better job, I say let them.

Re:W3C proving increasingly unable to *do* anythin (1, Funny)

blowdart (31458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355386)

It's about time someone tried to circumvent the W3C.

As long as it's Mozilla? Come on, if Microsoft add something outside a standard there are cries of "embrace and extend", "evil monopoly" and so on. Why is it OK for Mozilla to do skip? Next thing you know the <blink> tag will come back.

There are reasons for this. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9355509)

Not obvious to most, even at W3C, but it should be.

Microsoft hates browsers, becaused they are inherently non-proprietary. Their browser was an admission that they could not continue to compete without one. Obviously, Microsoft is a big company and there are people within Microsoft who feel differently, and any attempt to make PR out of the fact will be vigorously denined because continuing to coast with their IE dominance is what they want to do without improving anything.

But as much as Microsoft acts as a corporation, any influence Microsoft can bring to bear on browsers at W3C or elsewhere will be to marginalize open standards and avoid better standards-based functionality.

What browsers need is bold new initiatives.

Microsoft's desire to stick to HTML is just to avoid doing anything significant to browsers at all.

Browsers are hampered by the HTTP get/put model, as well as a number of other things that XForms addresses. Microsoft would rather have you using web applications that execute as native or other Windows-specific code, which is a natural consequence if browser-based applications are kept too hobbled.

These days, W3C browser development is throttled by Microsoft who says on most useful browser extensions proposed at W3C: "you may choose to do it, but we will not support it".

XForms is easy and useful enough that it can be efficiently implemented in much less time than the argument takes. Enhancing HTML is a good thing as well. In reality, you won't find Microsoft doing much of either, and the competition should be doing both. There are significant things that HTML is not likely to do. XForms was designed to be the next generation forms for HTML.

Opera is just trying to keep things small.

Mozilla has lost any vision for leadership in these things.

But failure of the browser will be a failure in vision on the part of the IE competition.

Just what the Wild Wild Web Needs Now (5, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355300)

"It will be interesting to see if any other browser developers jump on board WHATWG."

I think "WTF" would be a more appropriate acronym.
And we can all be safe to say that we wont be seeing IE join in on Opera and Mozilla's pillow casing party.

Personally, this entire little development sounds like a waste of resources that could be better spent on tuning and promoting their products. Seeing how widely adopted Mozilla's XUL architecture is, I think the Mozilla group would be better off getting Firefox up to speed and getting the rest of their projects in order before running about trying to cop some moves here.

That's not to say that I don't support Mozilla and Opera but, being a Web Developer for the last 6 years and a Internet Services Architect for the last 3, I can tell you right now that the last thing both Web Developers and Browser Developers need are more languages and competing standards. We are at a point of language saturation as never before and most these new languages are aimed at online services. While this may seem to be a great thing because choice is generally good, we have too many choices and most developers I know can only get 2-3 languages down to an expert level. So this development would most likely be ignored on a professional inplementation level while more standardized and familiar languages/feature sets would be used. In the end, it would most likely be a waste of time and resources for both Mozilla and Opera who should focus (IMO) on getting DOM Level 3/XSLT/CSS/SVG upto snuff and better integrated with the existing standards before going off on their own.

Case in point: Right now, I'm making a web service that has a native XML interface, which then gets (optionally) rendered via an XSLT interface with a 100% CSS defined GUI and the UI logic handled via DOM level 2 and Javascript. The applicational logic is handled via a PHP portal/middleware broker to the stored Postgres pgSQL database views/routines.
Got all that? I argued strongly with my client against using soch a complex interface architecture, but it was writtten in stone and they held firm and were willibg to pay for it -- so they got it. But, I can't count all the possible points of failure on one hand. Does it break in the database? maybe the XML? The PHP? Maybe the XSLT or maybe it's just the CSS or the Javascript.
The fact that Firefox requires a seperate CSS-stylesheet doesn't help matters, but I opted out of Firefox support to Support Gecko variants (safari) as well as Mozilla and IE -- but not Opera. Not proving support for certain browsers was a definite plus here -- since it's an intranet app meant to be used via VPN and not accesable to the public. But I shudder to think at the amount of CSS-stylesheets and JS includes that would be required to support this as a public service.

What we need right now is better integration/platform independence and the browser would be the common ground here. So instead of running off on their own and adding more languages/points of failure, maybe they could figure out a new means of getting everything to work together a bit better.
A good start would be getting Opera/Mozilla/Firefox all on the same page in terms of CSS/DOM level 3 compatability, that would be a lot more meaningful to me than a competing standard.

And thus ends my rant.

SVG is my make or break issue (4, Interesting)

ynotds (318243) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355333)

Sure I would also like the form improvements that WHAT WG are promising, but I've already got a bag of tools which do pretty much all I really need in that direction, as ugly a hack as CGI might be.

But until SVG is fully integrated into a browser and the DOM, the most important projects that have built up over a lifetime still cannot get started, and the stuff I have been working towards is only a tiny fraction of the potential applications of object graphics, an almost endless territory I became a lot more aware of in early PostScript days when potential players were attracted like bees to a honeypot.

Most people seem to have convinced themselves that SVG is primarily a more open alternative to Flash, but I see it being far more important that SVG bring the interactivity of the Web to areas which nowadays are mostly represented by static PDFs, obviously beyond print previewing.

It's really quite strange, when so much of the heritage of cooperative development came out of the technical research communities, that all that half of the current generation seems to want to do is reemulate a very tired set of office applications.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a meaningful schematic diagram is worth ten thousand and a manipulable schematic diagram would be worth a hundred thousand.

While Flash could technically be used for such tasks it suffers from PDF's failure of not playing nicely with the browser model at the next level, and from a whole lot of historic perceptions.

For a brief moment earlier this year it appeared that the Mozilla team was going to get serious about SVG. There is another "last" opportunity during the Longhorn FUD [] to make some real inroads against the monopolist.

If we can finally get SVG to the point where we can seriously start building a technical visualisation web then I may not have to go to my grave with quite so many incomplete projects.

that's the great thing about standards .... (-1, Redundant)

Daltorak (122403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9355393)

.... there's so many to choose from!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?