ccurvey at earthlink.net
Thu Sep 2 21:13:50 EDT 2004
Jorey Bump wrote: > Nick wrote: > >> On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 15:28, Jorey Bump wrote: >> >>> It seems appropriate to judge a webapp framework partly on the >>> quality of the HTML it produces and the tools it provides to >>> accomplish this. >> >> >> >> Maybe, but why should the app developer have to come up with the >> presentation? > > > In this context, to show how well presentation is separated from logic. > > Perhaps it's best to impose a policy instead of providing a template. A > real world example is declaring which version of HTML to use, require > that it validates and that it displays correctly in a text browser. Then > demand that it flows seamlessly within a site and provide a fake index > page to use as a guide (and provide logo images and other resources, if > desired). After that, give the developer the autonomy to create the > interface. I work under these conditions all of the time. How about this? We provide a reference UI for everyone to use, and encourage everyone to stay as close to it as possible. (The closer the UI is across the implementations, the easier it will be to see differences in the implementation.) If an approach lends itself to a super-duper UI, or it makes the reference UI hard to implement, then do what you gotta do. I'd also recommend the same approach for persistence/database usage, because in both cases, I think an implementation that lets you swap a UI or a database for another would be a valuable thing. After all, if we come up with a few implementations, a second stage might be to convert them to use the same database/persistence mechanism so that we could do performance comparisons. This has turned into quite a lively discussion with some very good ideas! Shall we start in on a candidate list of use cases for our exhibition?