[Klug-general] Interactive Websites

[Karl Lattimer]

> > > True the new feature like css and ajax make it better for the end user
> > > but the developer still has to cope with 3 different browsers that
> > > work complely different and use 2 different scripting languages
> > > (Javascript and DHTML)
> >
> > WRONG! Javascript == DHTML Javascript puts the D in HTML
> 
> Nope DHTML = Microsofts Idea of Javascript
> Javascript = Mozillia, Netscape who created Javascipt orignally.

Actually DHTML is a collective term, dynamic HTML, implies a way not a
means, I should have made that clear, microsoft came up with activeX
which can employ pretty much any windows library, vbscript which died
quickly due to security crazyness. And finally the winner is ...
JScript, which is microsofts implementation of javascript >their< way.
This is half the problem with DHTML, however if you stick to the
javascript standard not browser specific behaviour then you don't have
problems generally.

> But why could they not structure it in XML so that least you only had
> to learn one way to structure a file!. I'm sure I could come up with a
> DTD that would make an XML version capapble of doing EVERYTHING in
> CSS. I expect you are not sure exactly how flexable XML really is.

Think of CSS like this, a schema definition for XML, it applies a
standard set of properties to an XML element there's also xslt and a
bunch of other things starting with X which support xml and these are
generally not in the slightest structured in xml. 

CSS is quirky but its important to define as you do for instance.

.error .info .note {
	font-size: 8px; /* or em */
}

.error {
	color: #990000;
}

Its more like a C++ header file than a source file, its a bunch of
properties which are PURELY related to style. XML would be difficult,
this way is far easier and faster to process. It allows for inheritance,
generalisation and polymorphism, which XML can't really do without over
complicating the structure toward incoherence. 

> >
> > > There are always more than 3 ways to do things and different one of
> > > thouse 3 ways will work on a different client front end.
> >
> > You really are over-confusing what is a very simple situation, the only
> > erroneous browser to the CSS/JS standards is internet explorer, and
> > version 7 is much better at this.
> >
> 
> Unfortunately over 50% of the population use IE by not making you
> application IE compliant to lose half you audience.

Did you look at a list of incompatibilities before you discounted it?
There really isn't a great deal of difference, the event handling is
different, AJAX is done differently, but essentially everything is
there.

> 
> > > If you want to create a website that is going to work on every browser
> > > since Netscape 2.2 and yet still use bleeding edge methods when they
> > > are available you are out of luck.
> >
> > No, you're lazy and dumb. + The bleeding edge technology didn't exist in
> > NS2.2
> 
> What I mean is a website that works in NS2.2 but works better and uses
> bleeding edge facilities when they are available ie in Firefox 2. 

I can do that easily! Thats what CSS is for, netscape <4 didn't support
CSS at all (TMK), so you do the HTML layout, and the CSS does all of the
styling and the javascript well if NS2.2 doesn't support the javascript
version your code is in you can specify a fallback script which will
provide some functionality for those browsers.

But why on earth would you want to, putting a website online which
doesn't work in NS2.2 or actually <latest-gen is irrelevant now, there
are security issues with all previous generations which will burn the
machines of any stragglers. They're malware infested hounds and you
don't want them visiting, so fuck em. 

> You can't force you uses the latest browsers.

Yes you fucking well can! and bloody well should! and that is all i have
to say about that!

> >
> > > I like Dreamweaver its just a shame I can't get anyone to get me a
> > > licence and its non Linux compatable unless I emulate which would
> > > probably break the licence aggreement
> >
> > WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR!!!!!! FFS WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN THIS, ITS
> > SERIOUSLY LIKE WATCHING PEOPLE SLAM SQUARE PEGS INTO ROUND HOLES. WINE
> > DOES NOT EMULATE IT CREATES AN INTERMEDIATE COMPATIBILITY LAYER!!!!!
> >
> 
> I know that but most people will call it an emulator it works like
> one, it feels like one, it even has the word in its name. Its an
> internal technical issue that its not. It enables me to "emulate " a
> windows environment using linux libraries therefore it is an emulator.
> The fact that its more of a translator than an emulator is not the
> point. To most people it emulates windows for linux there for people
> will call it an emulator even if its not. Most people are not
> interested in technical details they are interested in what it does
> which is allows me to run windows program on linux and there for
> "emulate" an environment they can run in. In fact Wine is just as much
> an emulator as Java is but I've never yet heard people call Java an
> emulator.

Java is nothing like an emulator, java runs byte code, it is therefore
more of an interpreter than an emulator and exists in its own special
world called a virtual machine, java is essentially a theoretical
processor that can be 'emulated' on any platform, more an object of
emulation than an emulator itself. Virtual machines are another way of
dealing with that whole situation, they aren't technically emulators
they run the same stuff and do no instruction manipulation and that is
where the sticking point is.

How do you define the difference? well WINE people don't like wine being
called an emulator, as you can probably tell, the reason for this is
simple. 

Emulating a PSone on 32bit x86 requires about a 2GHz processor, and at
least a GeForce2 for reasonable output. A PSone is spec'd at 33.9 MHz
with 512 KB RAM and 8 MB Video RAM

It performs so well under these specs, because 
1) The machine code is native
2) the byte ordering is native
3) the OS is highly optimised firmware which provide no APIs only
hardware interrupts and stuff n nonsense
4) everything is statically linked into a minuscule memory space 
5) All video is done by a tuned specially designed graphics card
6) The system is adequately segmented to prevent the processor doing
anything but logic and the basics, video doing video and so-on.

The PC performs badly emulating because
1) It must translate the machine code 5% hit there already
2) The byte ordering is different, 10% hit easily
3-4) You're running a whole bigass operating system and dynamic library
stack
6) Your PC is general purpose not designed specifically for this task

Emulating hits the processor, memory and graphics hard. Wine doesn't,
there is no difference in processor architecture. The reason wine is so
strict about this is that the performance hit associated with emulators
has also been associated with wine for no good reason.

Emulation is by definition converting one machine code into another,
don't confuse this with cloning or mimicking of an environment. Wine is
good for linux because when microsoft starts to coast people need a
migration path. 

Escrow 

This is where the money will be in 5-10 years.


K,