Re: field validation (was Re: COBOL/DB2 Date edit question)



"Richard" <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187303899.451981.309060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 17, 4:50 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now, if someone was paying me to develop this site I simply couldn't
spend
that amount of time on the "Cross Browser" problem.. Server stats
showed
that for the brief time I let people access it, 93% were using IE.

In a hypothetical city one company ran all the car parking buildings.
All the cars that were not Ford's were being defaced: tires let down,
grease smeared on the windscreens, mud on the headlights, etc. When
complaints were made the company said that "95% of the cars parking in
the buildings were Fords, so they didn't care about the tiny numbers
of other cars that existed. If you want to have a great parking
experience then go buy a Ford. Later the Fords that were not XP or
Vista models were getting defaced."

I also agree with others who replied that your web-site
should not depend on ActiveX because of the integrity holes it opens
for the viewer and because Microsoft in their infinite LACK OF wisdom
refuse to have an option where I can enable it by web-site on first
visit either for the session or always.

My web site neither depends on nor uses ActiveX that would be downloaded
to
a Client (I certainly use COM and ActiveX on the server).

When people talk about a web site 'using' ActiveX they understand this
to mean client side ActiveX loaded into the client. They neither know
nor care what happens on the server.

I'm pretty bored
with hearing about the "holes" it opens up. Been hearing this same old
song
for years now, usually from people who don't know what COM even stands
for,
have never written a COM component, ignore the fact that there have been
3
releases of COM+, each one steadily improving the product, plus a
multitude
of security patches, but heard or read somewhere that it is a security
breach. Well, I've been implementing COM+ and DTS systems with RPCs ...

You are talking at cross purposes. Client ActiveX does have "holes"
and is unfixable.

HTML is more dangerous in my opinion, and you don't hear
people going on about that...

Then you have a very strange opinion. It may be that IE can be broken
in some ways, for example some 16bit characters in a URL will cause
the rest of the URL to be hidden, but this is a Windows failure not
HTML.


I don't like sites where they make me download documents in .PDF, with
the
concomitant nagging from bloody Adobe and insistence I upgrade and get a
toolbar I neither need nor want. But I still go and get documents.

You don't have to put up with that. You can make the web behave the
way that _you_ want to just as I make it the way that _I_ want. In
particular you can have an add-on the Firefox such as 'PDF Download'
and have it displayed as HTML or downlaod, or load it into another
reader such as xpdf (even on Windows) or kpdf (KDE runs on Windows).

I never put pop-ups on web sites and agree wholeheartedly. They spoil the
experience rather than enhancing it, and most Browsers suppress them
anyway.

IE7 has caught up in some respects. yes.

That doesn't mean I won't try and get Cross Browser compliance, or that I
would never change site code because of different Browsers. It just means
I
develop with IE, use MS oriented tools (for the most part) and so, will
only
guarantee the site when viewed in an MS Browser.

I would've thought that people would appreciate that position even if
they
don't agree with it.

I can appreciate that position as long as the exclusion is not from
ignorance, which it obviously isn't.

Thank you Richard. I know you don't like MS so I thought your post was
"restrained" :-)

There is far too much heat in this subject and I have all the heat I can
handle at the moment so no more on this...

Thanks for a balanced response.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."




.

Relevant Pages