Standards and Non-Standards, Drawing the line. [Archive]

View Full Version : Standards and Non-Standards, Drawing the line.

Tim Scarfe

07.08.2002, 12:19

Note: This is a thread that has been moved here from the Moderators forum for public consumption.

From "The new site version.."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Ok, Im the mean time, Let's have a debate about where we are going to draw the lines between standards, and prop features. Including topics such as things the standards dont cover ie. the viewport, filters etc.

DC is gonna be as boring as hell and no-one will visit if we make an idontsmoke.co.uk, know what I mean?

Remember that iht.com ISN'T standards-compliant, it is more "taking advantage of what I have got" attitude. Let's not make the mistake of confusing standards compliance, with degradibility.

Please regard previous comments on Aaron's article: http://www.youngpup.net/articles/foiled-by-standards.xml

I'll make a new thread about this. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

--
Regards, Tim <tim@developer-x.com>
http://www.developer-x.com

Icestorm

07.08.2002, 12:28

Alright, I'd like to hear your opinion on this Tim :) Where do you draw the line? Is innerHTML ok, is document.all, is createElement("menu item ('#')") ? Or is that not what you meant?

[url="http://13thparallel.org/"]13thparallel[/url:hptwoxh8dx] | [url="http://skriptlab.13thparallel.org/"]summer lab[/url:hptwoxh8dx]

mad hatter

07.08.2002, 14:23

I'm finding that more and more I'm able to just use the standards. Things seem to work out ok. That is, of course, minus the viewport and a few little things, but those are usually easy enough.

I totally agree that CSS is not anywhere near where it needs to be. There are so many instances where I have to use tables and the like because CSS can't handle it.

- D.S.
< [url="http://www.stilleye.com"]stilleye[/url:x3i8vub7nq] | [url="http://www.stilleye.com/scripts/marginfix"]IE Margin Fix[/url:x3i8vub7nq] >

Icestorm

07.08.2002, 14:25

Tim, I've read Aaron's article and I've formed my own opion long ago, but for the sake of the discussion in this forum, I'd like to see you formulate that "line" in your own words instead of referring to "I think we should go with aaron, and side in spirit, but not blindly." :)

[url="http://13thparallel.org/"]13thparallel[/url:60mgmjlo28] | [url="http://skriptlab.13thparallel.org/"]summer lab[/url:60mgmjlo28]

Icestorm

07.08.2002, 14:38

Tim, I *think* I know what you mean, but you're stating it all a little vaguely and relative to other things. You say things like "we should go with aaron", "DC is gonna be as boring as hell and no-one will visit if we make an idontsmoke.co.uk" and "Remember that iht.com ISN'T standards-compliant, it is more "taking advantage of what I have got" attitude."

I'm sorry if I'm being anal, but I would like to hear what you're trying to say in your own words, so I can be sure what you mean. If you keep saying to do or don't do like someone else does, I still don't know for sure what your own position is, and that makes it hard to respond.

Edited by - icestorm on 07/08/2002 19:40:37

mad hatter

07.08.2002, 15:17

Tim -

I mean lack of CSS for real layout control. There is sorta stuff right now, but not like there needs to be. Say, for example, I have a navigation at the top of my page. I have X number of menu items (it can vary per page or whatnot). How do I make them fill up the whole width of the nav bar? This takes a lot of work in CSS.

Another example: try and have a sidebar that is always the same height as the content. You know, a bar that goes all the way down the page. You can do that with tables, but with CSS, who knows.

I'd like to use CSS for layouts, but tables work so well (and that is how people design in the real world, like a newspaper, it fits the grid).

- D.S.
< [url="http://www.stilleye.com"]stilleye[/url:uqdcy97afu] | [url="http://www.stilleye.com/scripts/marginfix"]IE Margin Fix[/url:uqdcy97afu] >

ttrenka

07.08.2002, 17:31

OK, I'm getting involved...although this is off the top of my head, as I'm about 3 feet deep into any number of projects right now...

Standards are great. Being able to write code with one single expectation would be the best damn thing ever. I HATE having to code two separate things for the most popular browser and the most compliant browser. I REALLY hate having to deal with different box models (and before anyone says "IE6 compliance mode" I'd have to reply that IE5.5 still has a very large audience...and I personally don't like the proper CSS box model, I still prefer IE's)...

With that in mind, we need to remember that this site focuses on taking the intended HTML paradigm (the document) and changing it in varying degrees into another one (a functional application of sorts). The standards, while trying to accomodate some of the trends and tendencies that a lot of people (including some on this site) have done, are still aimed at the document as paradigm.

Ice and I (as well as the other guys at 13th) had a discussion very similar to this a while ago...basically we were wondering to ourselves *why* try to do the things we were doing in HTML when there are better platforms either out there already, or about to be (i.e. Flash and SVG). And I don't think we ever came up with the answer.

So, as far as standards go, my opinion is that we should follow them the best we can as long as they serve the purpose of the site in the best, most efficient manner possible. That includes the defined "needs" of the site, and more.

Gotta go, I'll think more on this tonight.

Icestorm

07.08.2002, 17:52

So, as far as standards go, my opinion is that we should follow them the best we can as long as they serve the purpose of the site in the best, most efficient manner possible.

There we have it again. I agree with this, I also think that standards are nice and we should follow them where reasonable because using the standards is a desirable thing. Then when the standards or the browsers' support for them fall short, we can use *some* non-standard techniques.

I thought pretty much everyone here arrived at this point already, is finding agreement on this really the goal of this thread? In that case... yay.

[url="http://13thparallel.org/"]13thparallel[/url:unqrn6el38] | [url="http://skriptlab.13thparallel.org/"]summer lab[/url:unqrn6el38]

ttrenka

07.08.2002, 19:06

woo hoo.

BTW, the standards don't really preclude the use of tables as a layout mechanism, or the use of images for other things. Implied maybe, but not precluded.

:)

Dan

07.08.2002, 19:55

I thought pretty much everyone here arrived at this point already
I thought so too.

re:flash etc. Yeah, Tim that's what we were talking about. You use the best tool for the job. There are loads of sites that really don't need Flash, but then there are somethings that Flash does perfectly (e.g. animations). At work we use Flash as a component in a webpage in exactly the same way as we use an image. We develop learning products and sometimes there are things the "Instructional Designers" want that can only be done in Flash.
That's what Tom implied we had been talking about.

Use the tool that fits your purpose - quality web design :)

»» Dan (dan@pupius.net)
»» www.pupius.net || [url="http://www.dhtmlcentral.com/resources/redirect.asp?linkid=23"]www.endoflow.com[/url:a8ifvj727m] || www.13thparallel.org

aboodman

07.08.2002, 20:43

I had forgotten about that article.

// aaron
// aaron@youngpup.net
// http://www.youngpup.net

ttrenka

07.08.2002, 21:36

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I mean what the hell is the 'net turning into, Should we start handing-out distrubuted applications to people to see about us and what we are doing? Can't you see that flash is only one step or two away from that! You complain about Microsoft taking over the net, I'd be far more worried about evil Macromedia if I were you. The web is pretty safe in Microsoft's hands, and the model they have set up for the web is well thought out and has a far greater scope than anything Macromedia could dream of. It's a good thing here that MS owns the user-base for desktops up.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

dude...what's up? You sound frustrated, not necessarily about this, but maybe other things as well...haven't seen you this worked up, well, ever. :D

I mentioned both Flash and SVG because there seems to be an attitude (not from you or anyone else specifically, just an overall one) that says "DHTML is about things flying around on a page". Obviously this is not true, but when it comes to UI development, HTML does leave a bit to be desired (I *still* can't believe HTML forms are handled the way they are...why the hell isn't the form action set within controls that trigger submission, like a button for christsakes!)...and when it comes to UI, you are more often than not dealing with a set of absolutely positioned elements, of which Flash and SVG are aimed at handling from the ground up.

For applications for public consumption, you better believe I would consider using either of those technologies (either as an overall UI or as parts of a UI strung together with HTML). Why? Because like IE, the Flash player in the least is ubiqutious, and it really does excel at things like animation and interaction. Crap programming language behind it (including ActionScript MX), but at least it's got object support (unlike that crap server-side language they are trying to package with it, I won't mention any names but it has the initials CFMX ;).

If the "app" in question is a private one, then I will say to you: we are going to build a .NET fat client using Windows Forms and at least the System.Net namespace. Why? Because those are environments I can control, and they give me a LOT more power than simple HTML does.

So then...I guess the question I have to ask is--are you really talking about standards, or are you thinking more along the lines of the article you, me and Alex were going to write about HTML and the use of it? I for one will say this about it: I will use whatever platform I deem the most appropriate for whatever is needed, and within whatever requirements are laid before me. Commercially speaking, that's what they pay us for.

And don't think that evil Macromedia is any better or worse than evil Microsoft...two sides of the same coin, really.

aboodman

07.08.2002, 21:57

i agree with you, tom, i'll use whatever best suits my needs. and right now, the answer to that question is a very loud (screaming?) phat client in .net.

but aren't you atleast a little bit sad that it didnt turn out to be something like xul?

.Net is surely cool, but there is a technical reason why the web went boom: it was easy. websites were brain-dead easy to make. xul is almost as easy, but you can do really cool applications with it. I wish that some of what we learned about lowering the barrier of entry with the document web could have made the leap to the application web, but it looks like we're going straight back to high barrier compiled clients. and i can tell you right now that there's no way i would have gotten into web development if all i had to start with was .net.

i owe my life to the fact that learning to program for the web was as easy as surfing around and checking out source. the aaron boodman's of two years from now won't be able to do that. sucky.

// aaron
// aaron@youngpup.net
// http://www.youngpup.net

ttrenka

07.08.2002, 22:08

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>i agree with you, tom, i'll use whatever best suits my needs. and right now, the answer to that question is a very loud (screaming?) phat client in .net. but aren't you at least a little bit sad that it didnt turn out to be something like xul?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
yeah, it does suck. I'm not happy about having to go the fat client route (actually part of me is because that puts me into a whole new spectrum of coding, and i can start commanding more money and respect than I would if i was "just" a web programmer, which I'm not, but hey whatever), but i think the client expectations are exceeding (big time) the capabilities of multi-agent HTML. Yet another fallout of the dot-com boom...I'm getting tired of having to tell clients that "yes, i can do that, but not for the pittance you want to pay, and certainly not cross-browser for the pittance you want to pay..."
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>i owe my life to the fact that learning to program for the web was as easy as surfing around and checking out source. the aaron boodman's of two years from now won't be able to do that. sucky.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
yeah...*sigh*. I think we are maybe starting to see the end of an era, and a circle right back to the way it was in the mid-90's: custom OS programs for needs, except this time with better (hopefully) communication tools. Like some of the things being packed with OS X, and some of the things we're starting to hear grumbles about from MS...

oh hey almost forgot, nice article(s).

Edited by - ttrenka on 08/07/2002 20:10:06

Icestorm

08.08.2002, 06:24

Yes I would use flash for websites, if that would fit the goal and if I knew a little better how to use it. With limited use in the form of a decoration or illustration, an embedded piece of flash is little different from an embedded image, and not any more "evil" or "un-www". A site done in 100% flash has some drawbacks but one big advantage: a controlled plugin environment. This is exactly what's missing from html + css + javascript, and what makes the commercial use of DHTML a tricky unreliable business.

Anyway... if this thread had been in a public forum (like it is now) I would have written some of the things above differently, or just not.

[url="http://13thparallel.org/"]13thparallel[/url:8rhb47ocfh] | [url="http://skriptlab.13thparallel.org/"]summer lab[/url:8rhb47ocfh]

Mark

09.08.2002, 15:23

interesting..

compare a website w/ a house.
i think the standards are the foundation and the walls of an house. filters are the wallpapers, the furniture etc. browser specific things (such as handy ie things) are the machines which make living in the house easier and nicer.

so taking this to webdesign, using standards is nessesary, coz else your house would fall apart soon. the filters and other stuff are part of making the site look nice.

so where should the line be drawn? i think it should be drawn at the moment you need non-standards to make your site better, while using standards before the line.

m a r k ( 1 5 )
[url="http://neo.dzygn.com"]s i t e[/url:smkgc4zmsk] | | [url="mark@dzygn.com"]m a i l[/url:smkgc4zmsk]

ttrenka

09.08.2002, 16:42

Interesting metaphor...but I would say that instead of the standards being the foundation of the house, it is the materials with which the house is built. Good planning and architecture would be the foundation.

And then with that change, note that there are different building materials that best suit the purpose of the house. I wouldn't build a school with particle board, but rather with cinder block...and I wouldn't build a residential home with cinder block, but studs and plywood. A skyscraper needs to use steel girders, etc.

The point is, the standards are basically twofold--the tools with which to build something, and an implied "building code" which gives recommendations on how those tools should be used. Much of the argument that has happened in this forum and elsewhere has not focused on the tools themselves, but the implied recommended ways of using them.

But that doesn't mean everything has to be written for and using (d)html. That's the point Tim, Aaron, Ice and myself (among others) are stating here.

Mark

10.08.2002, 09:52

thats true tom, altho now your talking bout the debate for the entire web. i thought this thread was meant for dc..

and coz dc is about d(x)html, i think we (also) should discuss the use of standard and non-standard (x)html.

anyone else w/ an opinion??

m a r k ( 1 5 )
[url="http://neo.dzygn.com"]s i t e[/url:cgtusx2g0g] | | [url="mark@dzygn.com"]m a i l[/url:cgtusx2g0g]

ttrenka

10.08.2002, 13:24

True Mark, true. My apologies--it was my assumption that this thread *had* evolved to encompass the entire web...

So then back to applying these concepts to DC in general. Even if some of us are a bit "disillusioned" at this point with the current state of tool implementation of DHTML...I suppose that we should try to follow the practices WASP has put forth. It is such a difficult decision though. When you script elements, you suddenly make your document for the most part inaccessible--which is a large part of the reason for the standards in the first place. I mean, this site in some ways is dedicated to taking the plain ol' HTML document and extending it, right? Even if the results of your script are validating, many of the platforms that become available with the standards are locked out again.

But then again, can you ever see browing DHTMLCentral from, say, your fridge? Your toaster? or even your cell phone? I don't think so--this site serves a single purpose, and that's the common HTML browser. We can use the standards with that in mind.

Similarly, should we attempt to build a site without any images? The implications put forth by the WASP, while not saying right out that images should be avoided, certainly look for a departure from document creation with tables and cut-up image fragments. I've seen maybe two or three sites out there that in my opinion succeed with this (http://www.whatdoiknow.org, http://www.placenamehere.com and http://www.textism.com). Problem is, none of those sites serve the same purpose as this one--2 are weblogs, and the last is a personal site that isn't "quite" a weblog. This site isn't; it's a place where good practice in DHTML coding is promoted, and more often than not bastardized (but that's the nature of the business, heh).

So then (pardon me while I work out my train of thought out loud). The reboot of this site should probably follow and promote some core principles. Which ones? Good question. Here's a couple that people are more than welcome to contribute to:

1. Never ever lose sight of the principal paradigm of HTML in extending it: HTML is about documents, and not applications.
2. Be very clear when a particular piece of code "crosses the line" from document as paradigm to application. When a piece of code is aimed at changing the paradigm, all bets are off; browser-specific and plug-in specific coding is allowable, and the standards can be ignored to a certain extent. An application is not necessarily accessible, and probably shouldn't be--especially if the purpose and functionality of the app is comprimised through "strict" standards interpretation.

Wow. For not really being awake yet I've written a lot. Hmm. Open to comments/flames/whatever else takes your fancy...

Mark

10.08.2002, 14:40

nicely said tom! i finally agree w/ you :)

m a r k ( 1 5 )
[url="http://neo.dzygn.com"]s i t e[/url:45kimbrbm1] | | [url="mark@dzygn.com"]m a i l[/url:45kimbrbm1]

Garrett Smith

13.08.2002, 03:40

Hey, you guys should check out custom tags!

There is one on jspinsider.com that includes a super-easy dhtml menu -- just two tags, menu, and item.

See MCT project.

http://dhtmlkitchen.com/