Just wanted to comment on the comments i got for my post Web browser changes wanted which was featured on JoelOnSoftware. Thank you all for your interest and comments! Look forward to hearing more of your views.
Travis said...Couldn't really find that much practical information there. But it seems that it doesn't seem our needs.
You should check out Nexaweb (www.nexaweb.com). I think they have what you need.
Anonymous said...We don't use .NET so I cna't comment on WebForm vs. WinForm.
Agreed. Any estimations what this cost in terms of development time, like so
WebFactor = [WebForm DevTime] / [WinForm DevTime]?
Also; what’s your users’ view on the subject? Do they suffer from the Web’s poorer UI, or are they happily unaware?
// Martin Rosén-Lidholm (martin_rosenlidholm[snabel-a]msn.com)
I think you can do a lot more than today - on the server.
“After all, HTML isn't evolving, so web pages and browser rendering in 2007 will be essentially the same as today (which means the web, or at least HTML, is as good as dead […]).”
Anonymous said...The web..dead? ;)
If HTML remains unchanged, it doesn't mean that the web is dead : on the contrary, it means it has reached a big enough market to be relied upon and trusted to create new tools and new uses. Think blog / wiki / groupware / ERP ;-) / etc...
Perrick -- http://www.onpk.net/
Anonymous said...Looks very interesting! I had a quick test but couldn't get it to work with my current script that uses MS XML Parser. Tried using that object with Mozilla but it didn't work.
XML support without plugins:
I have used http://freshmeat.net/projects/xmlforscript/ for parsing & accessing XML. It's not perfect but it works.
Anonymous said...Flash is great for some things. Like advertising, product demos, animations etc. But for general web-pages and in our case - a web-based ERP-solution - Flash is not the best option. Flash has many disadvantages though it is a great tool to use.