Re: REXML 2.5.7 and 2.4.7

I would be less generous to Microsoft.  I believe they deliberate deviate from 
the standard, as part of their strategy to force everyone to use their 
applications (and only their applications).

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:35 am, Sean Russell wrote:
> "MikkelFJ" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:<3e5bdb78$0$137$[e-mail]>... ....
>
> > Hmm - I could think of  plenty of things to bash Microsoft with, but I'm
> > not surely is fair in this case. I'm no XSLT expert so I can't judge the
> > current state. However, I know Microsoft were very actively supporting
> > XSLT in the
>
> The XSLT support in 6.0.2600.0000C0 is fairly conformant, just very,
> very, very slow.  Mozilla on the same hardware is an order of
> magnitude faster.
>
> > Point is - reality bites, especially early adopters. I believe Microsoft
> > in this case did an honest attempt to cooperate with the industry as a
> > whole and it is not fair to slam them based on some random version now
> > everyone has moved on.
>
> Moved on from what?  I didn't say we were using an old version of
> Internet Explorer.  Glaxo-Smith-Klein, one of the largest
> pharmaceutical companies in the world, is still based entirely on
> Windows NT, and won't upgrade to a different version of Windows for
> another two years, at least.  I expect that this is fairly common in
> business communities.  I fail to see why a reasonably recent version
> IE should neccessarily have worse XML and XSL support than, say,
> Mozilla.
>
> > Without blaiming anyone in particular, there are so many differences in
> > the browsers, that it is fair to choose a single browser based on the
> > intended audience. Web applications are crappy enough as is, but
> > supporting different browser versions is a nightmare.
>
> Ideally, you'd be able to write your application based on the
> /standards/ you're using, not how any given third-party piece of
> software interprets them.
>
> I distribute REXML, and I try darned hard to make sure that it
> conforms to spec.  And, I do this for free.  My criticism of Microsoft
> was that, with all of their resources *and* all of their revenue, they
> can't seem to keep their software even as conformant as, well,
> anything else.
>
> I'm not even talking about XML and XSL anymore; IE is fundamentally an
> HTML renderer, and it doesn't do *that* very well.  Opera (on NT),
> Mozilla (on NT), and Konqueror (on Linux) are all much more conformant
> to the CSS specs than IE on NT is.
>
> > Another point is that web applications are increasingly being used as
> > desktop application replacements. This puts so much stress on the client
>
> This is very true, and very unfortunate, and is certainly not MS'
> fault :-)
>
> > What we need is a completely new replacement of the X-windows standard
> > for properly building distributed applications over the internet.
> > Meanwhile
>
> XUL would help.  XForms is actually pretty nice (a nightmare to
> implement, but nice for form builders).
>
> I love web services, but I have a real problem with the whole servlet
> paradigm.  People are, essentially, tacking on stateful extensions to
> a stateless protocol, and I find it really distasteful.  On top of
> that, HTML is /not/ a good choice for a UI interface, and until we get
> universal broadband, using HTTP as the communication layer between a
> complex application client and the application logic on a server is a
> terrible idea.  This is way off topic though.
>
> > I believe the primary reasons for web applacations are 1) deployment, 2)
> > efficient client/server performance. For some to me unknown reason, many
> > developers can't figure out how to write networked applications without
> > bogging down in network traffic, unless working writh browsers where they
> > are forced to reduce the number of client / server operations. Deployment
> > is easily solved with a click to download thin client for dedicated
> > software - already happens inside browsers camouflaged as plugins. 2)
> > People should have learned trick by now.
>
> You're right about this.  You deploy web applications because
> everybody has a web client, so there's nothing to install.  You also
> have tight control over the application logic, which is on the server,
> which is nice for maintenance, debugging, and security.  If you're
> really careful about the information you're sending to the client, you
> can reduce network traffic.  On the other hand, there will always be
> some applications that are simply better as thick client applications.
>  Email is my favorite example.  Nobody in their right mind who uses
> email a lot would use a webmail gateway as their primary email client,
> if they have an alternative.  Having access to a webmail gateway is
> *nice*, mind you, but even over broadband, is tediously slow compared
> to a thick client.  The fact that I have to access usenet through a
> web interface is the the only thing tempting me to sign up for a
> usenet account, so that I can use a real client.
>
> But... for the moment... imagine how nice it would be if you could use
> Ruby as an HTML scripting language.  Mmmmmm.

-- 
Seth Kurtzberg
M. I. S. Corp.
480-661-1849
[e-mail]