[whatwg] about rich internat applications
Jose Gregorio Dinuncio Flores
jdinunci at uc.edu.ve
Wed Jun 9 05:45:28 PDT 2004
El mar, 08-06-2004 a las 15:35, Preston St. Pierre escribió:
> [...]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
More information about the whatwg