TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:53:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
> > As for "beyond HTML and scripting"--any Java (or even
> > bytecode from Ada), Javascript, DHTML, etc.--anything
> > that does client side processing--should be viewed on
> > Internet Explorer, Netscape 4.75-4.79, Netscape 6.x,
> > Opera, OmniWeb, and WebTV or the WebTV emulator on MacOS
> > 9, Mac OS X, Windows NT/2000, Window 95/98, and at least
> > one Unix.
>
> Considering how proud we are that Ada compilers actually are
> validated as following an international standard, the AdaIC
> web site should show the same respect for the official HTML
> recommendations from the World Wide Web Consortium.

I do not in any way mean to imply otherwise.  I would recommend
that AdaIC & ARA aim for all web pages served to contain _nothing_
contrary to the latest HTML, XML, and CSS specifications, and
accessibility guidelines.

HOWEVER, that does not mean they are required to use every feature.
Last time I checked, there existed NO browser that correctly
handles every feature, and some browsers do a VERY poor job.
A well-designed PORTABLE website should only use features that
render reasonably well on most browsers.

A good Ada programmer is not going to scatter tasking and generics
all over the place just because he/she is able to.  Many of us do
not use the outstanding Annex E features because only one compiler
supports them.

If the mission is to provide information about Ada, then to
use HTML or CSS features that trash 25% of the Web browsers
would be counter-productive.

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2