FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing to do.

[Ry Nohryb]

Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate intranet
environment, where webapps can create and manipulate MSOffice objects
to integrate existing business documents with database-driven webapps.

Your other "Big 4" browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard.

But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing to do with
the web.

 

[Ry Nohryb]

Yes, demanding that your expectations are satisfied without first
having good grounds for those expectations is not reasonable. IE
introduced the - innerHTML - property, and in IE it has never worked
any differently than it does now. If others introduce non-compatible
imitations of Microsoft's browser features that is no reason to expect
those features to work any differently in Microsoft's browser.

Also, given that innerHTML is as well in the 4 other major browsers,
and given that it works there better although differently than in IEs,
I can say that 4 browsers out of 5 have a better innerHTML
implementation than the botched one (Microsoft's IE).

 

[David Mark]

On Jul 27, 4:39 pm, Richard Cornford <[email protected]>




Also, given that innerHTML is as well in the 4 other major browsers,
and given that it works there better although differently than in IEs,
I can say that 4 browsers out of 5 have a better innerHTML
implementation than the botched one (Microsoft's IE).

You can't call Microsoft's botched (at least with regard to your
previous complaint about tables). They invented/documented it. You
could more appropriately say that the others are botched in that
regard.

 

[Ry Nohryb]

Being worse isn't a bug, it's a feature.  ;-)

Sometimes yes, LOL.

 

[Matt Kruse]

But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing to do with
the web.

Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense.

Matt Kruse

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense.

You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a decision
not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count on correct garbage
collection. If there is a problem, he can dictate the browser.

You're not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX
applications, which is to say, you're arguing a proprietary path. If you
can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then
you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper
garbage collection).

 

[David Mark]

You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a decision
not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count on correct garbage
collection. If there is a problem, he can dictate the browser.

And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge is
the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his head. "El
Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world.

You're not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX
applications, which is to say, you're arguing a proprietary path.

He's not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX. So he
is arguing that ActiveX requires IE? That's not entirely accurate,
but no matter as I don't see the relevancy of any of it.

As for "proprietary path", innerHTML is just as proprietary to MS.
The only difference is that other browsers have copied it.

I don't see how any of this relates to Jorge's non-arguments
concerning whether to support IE (MSHTML to be accurate) or not. The
fact remains that professionals must support it and that should have
been the end of this story (years ago).

If you
can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then
you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper
garbage collection).

You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the end-user's
choice of browser.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge is
the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his head. "El
Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world.

Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers do not
support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is relevant to Matt. I
assume he is saying that is an argument in favor of IE.

He's not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX. So he
is arguing that ActiveX requires IE? That's not entirely accurate,
but no matter as I don't see the relevancy of any of it.

You choose not to see.

You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the end-user's
choice of browser.

If you can deploy ActiveX, then you can deploy No IE. If you are in a
position to say no to a one group of browsers, then you are in a
position to say no to another group of browsers. If it is the case that
you are deploying a proprietary technology like ActiveX, then it is the
case that there are situations where the application matters more than
the browser, so requirements dictate the browser instead of the browser
dictating the requirements.

 

[David Mark]

Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers do not
support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is relevant to Matt. I
assume he is saying that is an argument in favor of IE.



You choose not to see.

You choose not to listen. It's a hard way to go.

If you can deploy ActiveX, then you can deploy No IE.

That's not true. Many projects of mine (including My Library) use
ActiveX (e.g. XHR, DirectX, etc.), and yet they work just fine in
other browsers.

It's not the same thing as deliberately creating a mess for no
reason. And El Abuelo advocates creating such messes on the *Web*,
which is obviously folly.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like
ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the
application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the
browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements.

That's not true. Many projects of mine (including My Library) use
ActiveX (e.g. XHR, DirectX, etc.), and yet they work just fine in
other browsers.

If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like
ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the
application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the
browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements.

 

[David Mark]

If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like
ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the
application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the
browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements.


If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like
ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the
application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the
browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements.

Thank you for that, Alan. The point so nice you made it twice?

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still irrelevant to
the discussion.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

It isn't an argument about IE, it is just an observation about IE. There
are business in the world that have intranets on which they have
browser-based applications that they use in order to conduct their
business. Some of these applications use ActiveX (because ActiveX can do
things that ordinary web browsers just cannot, in some cases) and these
businesses will not be giving these applications up because they
need/want them. So in these environments the browser installed on the
business's (likely 'locked down') desktops will be IE.

If you want to sell into that sort of environment then you have to cope
with IE, because if you don't the sales will go to your competition,
because the client dictates the environment.

That is the reality in web application development, but it has obvious
implications for the general web, particularly e-commerce. If someone
working for such a business is going to do a bit of online shopping
during their breaks (and there is no point in pretending that they
don't) then they will be using IE to do it. Now the online shop that
doesn't support IE is losing the business to its competitors that do.
And remember that these potential customers are, by definition, in
employment, and very often in well-paid employment (exactly the sort of
customers most business want).

If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like
ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the
application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the
browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements.

Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want to target the
iPad, people obviously have disposable income, I can use HTML 5 and
JavaScript and have enough return on investment to not worry about
people taking call center breaks. Online shopping is one application of
the web, but there are others.

Let's say I want a single purpose front end and the entire organization
is committed to running one application and wants the shortest path to a
working application. So, I choose Chrome and HTML 5 and a JavaScript
implementation that has property garbage collection.

If someone else has already deployed ActiveX on an Intranet then it is
too late to start insisting that a customer only use non-IE browser.

If someone else has made a decision to limit the platform, then it is
obviously the case that a decision to limit the platform can be made, is
made, that this is something that can occur.

And if you were never in a position to say either?

And if you were always in a position to say both? (I feel like a clj
sensei now.)

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

Thank you for that, Alan. The point so nice you made it twice?

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still irrelevant to
the discussion.

Irrelevant to the discussion perhaps, but rock solid reasoning that is
undeniably true, as evidenced by your inability to refute it.

Once again, you are not arguing the point. You are arguing semantics.
You find a word you don't like and that gives you the opportunity to
dodge the fact that you can't maintain your argument. The statement was
made twice, because you continue to refuse to accept that I am saying.

If it is possible to choose to develop browser based applications that
integrate with desktop applications, then it is possible to choose to
develop browser applications that require a functioning garbage collector.

It can be the case that application requirements dictate browser
requirements, not the other way around.

 

[David Mark]

Irrelevant to the discussion perhaps, but rock solid reasoning that is
undeniably true, as evidenced by your inability to refute it.

More like my unwillingness to consider irrelevancies. Haven't you
learned that yet?

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

More like my unwillingness to consider irrelevancies. Haven't you
learned that yet?

Unwillingness to accept challenges to your self-appointed role as
pedagouge? Yes. I'm all over it.

Remains that Joerge has a valid point. Circular references don't matter
if you have a properly garbage collected JavaScript, so if you don't
have to support Internet Explorer, then don't worry about it.

It's folly to do so.

 

[David Mark]

If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like
ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the
application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the
browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements.

Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want to target the
iPad, people obviously have disposable income, I can use HTML 5 and
JavaScript and have enough return on investment to not worry about
people taking call center breaks.

Targeting the iPad would be a silly thing to do on the Web. Very
silly.

As you seem to favor long-winded posts, get a load of one of mine:-

http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/msg/81bcd7477e79c842

....and you can skip to the part where the user mentions one of my
recent Twitter posts.

On the Web, targeting an iPad is no more necessary (or advisable) than
targeting an iPod, Opera Mini, refrigerators, etc. Such thinking has
always been the last resort of the lost.

Yes, I know that some people are still compiling databases of UA
strings, screen sizes and other browser features to this day; they
were crazy to do so back in the late 90's (e.g. BrowserHawk) and even
more lost today. Some people never get it.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

Targeting the iPad would be a silly thing to do on the Web. Very
silly.

As you seem to favor long-winded posts, get a load of one of mine:-

http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/msg/81bcd7477e79c842

I am not interested. I am only interested in driving home the point that
you have yet to refute. That Joerge has a valid point. Circular
references don't matter if you have a properly garbage collected
JavaScript, so if you don't have to support Internet Explorer, then
don't worry about it.

You have not been able to refute my point. You can pile on a judgments
about the examples used to illustrate my point, but you cannot refute
the point. It only serves my point, which is that the choice to support
a particular platform is a *choice*. You can think that it is a bad
choice, but it means that it is true that, it can be the case that the
application dictates the browser requirements, rather than the browser
dictating the application requirements.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

I am not. What I am doing is designing/building web applications for
business use.


Possibly, but those decisions are made by the client's IT department,
and are not open for negotiation.


For me a requirement is that the browser is not dictated, but rather
accommodated.


You want to target? So this is purely personal project where you make
the business decisions?

On every project I make the business decisions. I make the business
decision to take on a project. If the project is burdened by arbitrary
requirements, I'll pass on the project.

You seem to bring it back to your choice of platform and your business
and your personal preferences. The fact remains that Jeorge is correct
in his argument that, if you choose not to support browsers that do not
provide a proper garbage collector, then these issues of circular
references do not matter.

Logically that is only 'had' disposable income, as they may have
disposed of it on the iPad ;-)


"Call centre breaks"? The business I was thinking of were the ones that
use the software I write, including a dozen or so of the world's largest
financial institutions (who cannot be named due to confidentiality
clauses in contracts, but hence my allusion to "well paid") and all of
whom have IE (and often IE 6) only desktops business wide.


Yes, though it is the application of the web where it is most obvious
where the money is coming from. Then there is advertising/promotion;
widespread and again often interested in attracting the attention of the
well paid.


Fine, you can say whatever you like, but if your customers will not play
ball then they won't be your customers. That may not always matter but
sometimes (indeed often) it will.

Obviously. This also makes my point. If they are supporting a platform
that I do not support, then we both go back into the market to find a
better pairing. You conceede the point here. You admit that I am right,
that Jeorge is right. So the discussion can end here. You can specialize
in maintaining the environments of the past, I can specialize in the
creating the environments of the future.

<snip>

"Always"? That sounds like a very specialised context that most people
are unlikely to find themselves in (often, if ever).

Matt's point in response to Jorge's suggestion is an observation of the
market as it is today (and some explanation of why the market is the way
it is). People will act to service that market, that will undermine
Jorge's grand scheme for dictating browsers, and since the scheme relies
on everyone going along with it, it must then fail.

Jeorge's grand scheme is to build applications that are not burdened by
the weight of a 10 year legacy. It rules out a lot of shops, but not all
of them, and if there is a market large enough to pay his bills now, it
will only get larger as time goes on.

 

[Scott Sauyet]

You seem to bring it back to your choice of platform and your business
and your personal preferences. The fact remains that Jeorge is correct
in his argument that, if you choose not to support browsers that do not
provide a proper garbage collector, then these issues of circular
references do not matter.

That point is obvious enough to those paying attention to be almost
tautological. But Jorge was arguing much further that taking
advantage of this and writing scripts that would obviously fail in IE
would be an effective technique to either move people away from IE or
convince MS to fix its browser. That argument is much less clear.
Most of the people who've tried that, I imagine, have found themselves
fairly disappointed in the results; unemployment is rarely pleasant.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

That point is obvious enough to those paying attention to be almost
tautological. But Jorge was arguing much further that taking
advantage of this and writing scripts that would obviously fail in IE
would be an effective technique to either move people away from IE or
convince MS to fix its browser. That argument is much less clear.
Most of the people who've tried that, I imagine, have found themselves
fairly disappointed in the results; unemployment is rarely pleasant.

Moving away from an end of life platform and toward contemporary
platforms is a valid strategy. Moving off of vulnerable and unsupported
platforms toward contemporary platforms is a valid strategy. Dwindling
support for a platform expedites the drain. Certainly, Microsoft must be
feeling pressure to catch up to Safari and Chrome, which are backed by
serious competitors. If a developer wants to treat an improper garbage
collector as an issue they do not want accommodate, I can see how it
will reduce the cost and complexity of their offering, and their
platform will only grow as time goes on.

Otherwise, they are going to have a legacy user base, and it is hard to
lose customers that you've begun to support. There will be plenty of
employment for people who skate to where the puck will be.