Re: Form - response required?

Ted,

Man, I love your post ! You teach me Soooo much and I love ya for it (OK,
no wisecracks out there!).

Now, let's have a talk.  :-)

At 04:43 PM 8/17/00 -0700, Ted Temer wrote:
>Fuzzy:
>
>> !?! And what about the smart folks that cruise with Java off ?!?!
>
>I strongly suspect there is a far higher percentage of us would-be web
>authors who are denied access to CGI bins than the percentage of those
>surfing with JavaScript turned off.

Gee. Open with a left hook huh? Going for the KO *early*. That's ok, I
_obviously_ have a thick head. What I don't apparently have, is an open
mind. I have been "blessed" <chuckle, chuckle> with pretty much direct
server access for so long it is very easy for me to forget some folks can't
walk into the sysops cave and say "ok, today we are going to do this -
unless you are busy, and then I'll do it myself if you want [a big sly grin
is always in vogue when making a comment like this, BTW]".

>
>Yeah --- And WHAT about those "smart" folks ???
>
>There are exceptions of course, and generally speaking, one shouldn't
>generalize, but, "in general", we at least, put the folks who surf with
>their JavaScript turned off in exactly the same category as those poor folks
>who have NO computers in the first place. Because in a very real
>sense--that's exactly where they are. To use the American slang. "They're
>out of it!!"

Weeeel, I have to disagree based on my reason for advocating it is turned
off in most cases. Security and OS integrity. Take a peek yourself Ted (et
al) the majority of the "canned" JS editors are made by the same folks that
have got HTML editors so screwed up they are dangerous.


>
>If one is EVER to get ANYTHING done, you have to establish some parameters
>knowing full well that a few will slip through the cracks. Looking at this
>sort of thing in a different way--Is it really fair to the rest of the
>viewers--or yourself--to spend most of the day, dwelling on the few
>negatives. Or reducing every site down to the lowest common denominator??

I'm not thinking I'm trying to advocate _any_ "backwards" step here Ted or
even dwell on a single negative. I'm thinking that I'm advocating the use
of an alternative method that will function very, very reliably across more
browsers and platforms than you can shake a stick at.

Remember me? I'm the lug nut that says: "Stretch the envelope or no one
will ever make it bigger".

>
>Sure, content is king. It's the meat and potatoes of the web world. But we
>must never forget that chocolate too--is one of the MAJOR food groups.

Oh. You are talking to a guy known around the snack machines to be the guy
that has Oreo's and Coke for breakfast because all the other stuff in the
machines is junk food like . . . "trail mix" and "granola clusters".

Now, to go off on a relevant tangent . . . 

Languages.
You mentioned in a message a few days ago something along the line of (I'm
doing this from memory) . . . 'the fear of [web presentation] languages
stagnating". I have been meaning to reply to that but . . . anyway . . .

I feel the need to grab the soap box for a second.

I spent years living in South/Central America. As far as command of the
language (Mexican Spanish), I got down cold "food", "sex" and "where is the
reef?". I don't do well with "foreign" languages. Hell, half the time I
can't tell a girl's name from a boy's !!

It is exactly the metamorphosis in the HTML and other "web applicable"
languages that has so intrigued me. I see development in "stable"
presentation functions and features that make my scalp tingle. CSS is but
one great example of that. What stinks is the lack of capitalization on
these milestones (in *my* opinion :>)) by browser manufacturers and  . . .
Web Developers. There, I said it.

Naturally, being me, I have to qualify that last statement. We can't do too
much _directly_ with the browser manufacturers to get them with the
program, but we sure as hell can reach a few web developers!

Thus my position that "we" need to push folks towards using stable and
established ~existing~ tools to develop the world that is the web.

Seriously Ted, I know you know that server side tools are the most reliable
and powerful of the options available in the web developers tool kit. It
makes spanning OS's and platforms sooooo much easier.

The "problem" is the same with these tools that exist in "plain old" client
side stuff. The person or (god forbid) software writing the code is well .
. . lets call it "unaware" . . . they are causing BIG problems until it is
too late.

The difference is that those running servers for "public consumption' KNOW
their users are dangerous to their machines and keep them out of the areas
required to institute SSI,cgi and the like.

The alternative you ask?

Buy 'canned' JS editors and "roll your own". I'm sure you know Java and
Java Script are very powerful languages. Seeing these canned editors
marketed by companies who I -know- make WYSIWYG editors that suck scares me
- real bad.

I surf with JavaScript turned off. I preach stable reliable cross-platform
technology. Learn the language, the sysop will allow you in his cave. You
will own the world.

Thanks again Ted. ;-)
Fuzzy
__________________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
"Common sense is that layer of prejudices which we acquire before we are
sixteen." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA