Boost logo

Boost :

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-09 19:25:52

----- Original Message -----
From: "William E. Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>

> That explains why you've got code to detect the browser in your Javascript?
> Sorry, but this stuff isn't really portable, and "portable" usage means
> detecting the browser, which in and of itself is often done in a manner
> that's not 100% fool proof, is likely to break with the next version of the
> browsers, and won't cover all target browsers in any event (since Boost is
> totally open on this).

I have no major problem removing the Javascript from the PP libs. It is no big
deal, but nevertheless, the pp-lib documentation is using compliant code that
works on the two most used browsers (by far) MS and Netscape. Also, it doesn't
do any browser detection at all. Things are getting better as far as compliance
to the DOM. This, as with tabs in source files, is not really a big deal to me,
but I find it kind of ironic that Boost seems to abhor evolution is nearly
everything but C++ itself. I understand interests of portibility and all that,
and I'm not saying it isn't valid. However, I now have to dumb down the utility
of the interface for browsers that aren't compliant. I though we cared about
standards here?

> > 3. Javascript is essential tool manage repetitive tasks. In this since it
> > is as important as usage of external style sheets.
> Style sheets can't be compared to JS. Style sheets are 100% compatible for
> all browsers/tools, since they can simply be ignored with no ill effect.
> And as I've pointed out, there are better, more portable means of dealing
> with repetitive tasks then using JS.

> > 6. According to recent info in net ~95-97 present of browsers domain is
> > covered by ie and clones. Among the developers numbers are different of
> > course but ie still prevail I think. All others browsers try to keep up
> with
> > de facto standard ie. Though I would not want to discuss this point too
> > much.
> I'm glad you said that, because usage patterns like this mean NOTHING to
> this context. If I were designing an online website for banking, for
> instance, I might be swayed by such data, but if there's a single Boost user
> who can't make use of the documentation because of Javascript, well...
> that's one user too many.

Yes they do. They may not be the most important thing, but presentation *does*
matter--even for Boost. Also, that is like saying, "All I have is notepad, and
printed out HTML has a whole bunch of tags in it." According to that logical,
why don't we just use plaintext? I don't disagree wholly with the idea of
banning it, but at the same time presentation and ease of use do matter.

Paul Mensonides

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at