[whatwg] about rich internat applications

El mar, 08-06-2004 a las 15:35, Preston St. Pierre escribi?:

> [...]If we do everything client side, we need the support of people. 
> People, essentially, are idiots. They do what Microsoft tells them 
> (for the most part, of course). If Microsoft has goals that lie in 
> other directions, it would be easy for them to break compatibility. 
> This standards group is partially here to block the proprietary MS 
> stuff from becoming a standard. When 90% of the population is governed 
> by one body, and that body is against what we are doing, suddenly we 
> fail. Yes, everyone has proposed work-arounds. But do we really want 
> to be designing standards based on work-arounds? If so, it will 
> eventually be "Well we'd like to do it this way, but it would be 10x 
> easier to implement on IE if we did it this other way, so we'll do 
> that." The first way may have been much better, but client side and IE crushes it.

I totally agree. Let's do something simple and usefull, something that
can get a good and early implementation. Today, there is no standand to
compete with: there is a problem in wait of a solution. The first one to
get in will get the market. So, there is a chance to work in SPECs that
make our work easier. The operational word is "early".

In my ideal enviroment, the browser downloads a XML doc with a full
description of the UI of the app (is it XForms good enougth for a
modern, generic desktop interface?), it can handle the basic interaction
with the user (tooltips, status bar, etc.), and the real work is done in
the server (XMLRPC, SOAP). 


-- 
Jose Gregorio Dinuncio Flores <jdinunci at uc.edu.ve>
Universidad de Carabobo

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 05:45:28 UTC