Comments on: Webkit vs. Mozilla: Should Firefox jump on the Webkit bandwagon? http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/ Open Source, Open Standards Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:39:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: levisenft http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/#comment-498 Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:15:02 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/#comment-498 I would be happy to have one less platform to test on, however neither platform I think is good enough to chuck out for the other. Both systems have some great things going for them, both have some issues. I think we should be pushing all browser developers to have better standards compliance. IE has made some great strides towards compliance in the last couple of major releases. It just isn't as hard to get things to look the same and thats nice. There is still much work to be done here. I'd really like to see "Web 3.0", web 2.0 is really more like web web 1.2 used wrong but in a really nice way. I think the browser paradigm is wearing a little thin. We need something that is made to handle stateful applications, not something that is hacked to. I would be happy to have one less platform to test on, however neither platform I think is good enough to chuck out for the other. Both systems have some great things going for them, both have some issues. I think we should be pushing all browser developers to have better standards compliance. IE has made some great strides towards compliance in the last couple of major releases. It just isn’t as hard to get things to look the same and thats nice. There is still much work to be done here.

I’d really like to see “Web 3.0″, web 2.0 is really more like web web 1.2 used wrong but in a really nice way. I think the browser paradigm is wearing a little thin. We need something that is made to handle stateful applications, not something that is hacked to.

]]> by: johneeboy3 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/#comment-493 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:54:26 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/#comment-493 At the risk of sounding as though I'm on another planet... I am one of those persons who does not see the complexity and 'stack depth' of the 'web 2' and 'web 3' era. I'm very much a fan of the 'KISS' or 'Keep It Simple, Stupid' approach. Why have a client-side UI embedded in a browser? Why code in a way that, by nature of the legacy infrastructure, must be splattered almost randomly across the (very different) dynamic push-pull, stateful (web 2) and pull-only, stateless (web 1) paradigms? Why don't we draw a line in the sand between stateless one-way information internet data repositories and dynamic, 2 way stateful internet software systems. The internet infrastructure is getting sloppy under it's own momentum. As people who know something about data, software and networking, let's not contributing to the growing mess of hodge-podge systems and (non)interoperability. At the risk of sounding as though I’m on another planet…

I am one of those persons who does not see the complexity and ’stack depth’ of the ‘web 2′ and ‘web 3′ era. I’m very much a fan of the ‘KISS’ or ‘Keep It Simple, Stupid’ approach.

Why have a client-side UI embedded in a browser? Why code in a way that, by nature of the legacy infrastructure, must be splattered almost randomly across the (very different) dynamic push-pull, stateful (web 2) and pull-only, stateless (web 1) paradigms?

Why don’t we draw a line in the sand between stateless one-way information internet data repositories and dynamic, 2 way stateful internet software systems.

The internet infrastructure is getting sloppy under it’s own momentum. As people who know something about data, software and networking, let’s not contributing to the growing mess of hodge-podge systems and (non)interoperability.

]]> by: rambotribble http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/#comment-484 Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:47:43 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4144/#comment-484 Encouraging a mono-culture has prices to pay as well. A better alternative may lie in strenuously encouraging all browser developers to support published standards, as well as established conventions. Encouraging a mono-culture has prices to pay as well. A better alternative may lie in strenuously encouraging all browser developers to support published standards, as well as established conventions.

]]>