FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing to do.
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 16:48 On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > >>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>> 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. > > > 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. > > >> 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. > > You choose not to see. You choose not to listen. It's a hard way to go. > > >> 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. > > 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.
From: Richard Cornford on 28 Jul 2010 17:20 Alan Gutierrez wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez wrote: >>> Matt Kruse wrote: >>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb wrote: >>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>> 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. >> >> 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. 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). <snip> >> 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 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 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. And if you were never in a position to say either? > 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, But not just "the application" but the all of the applications in the environment being targeted. > so requirements dictate the browser instead of the browser dictating > the requirements. Where a requirement is to sell to customers then dictating browsers may already be out of the question. Richard.
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 17:34 On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>> 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. > >>> 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. > >>>> 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. > > 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 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. > > 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.
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 17:41 On Jul 28, 5:39 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>> 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. > >>>>>> 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. > >> 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 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. > >> 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. > > 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?
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 17:50
On Jul 28, 5:35 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: > > Alan Gutierrez wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > >>>> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb wrote: > >>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>> 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. > > >>> 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. > > > 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. 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. |