«

Hello,
This is a new website I am involved with, and we are seeking to open
up to a shortlist of users.

http://apppad.com

The basic overview of the service is:
- You define Object Type models & can use a Javascript API to persist
object data.
- You create HTML+Javascript applications (everything is provided for
you - no hosting or DB needed)

Hoping to find a few curious/interested Javascript gurus out there
who'd like to try it out.
Thanks & regards.

On Feb 18, 11:38 pm, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> This is a new website I am involved with, and we are seeking to open
> up to a shortlist of users.
>
> http://apppad.com
>
> The basic overview of the service is:
> - You define Object Type models & can use a Javascript API to persist
> object data.
> - You create HTML+Javascript applications (everything is provided for
> you - no hosting or DB needed)

That is a neat idea. I'm sure there are people that know front-end
technology but not the database side of things. Adobe Air is trying to
leverage this knowledge to build desktop apps.

> Hoping to find a few curious/interested Javascript gurus out there
> who'd like to try it out.

Unfortunately I don't have the time but good luck!

Peter

On Feb 19, 2:38*am, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> This is a new website I am involved with, and we are seeking to open
> up to a shortlist of users.
>
> http://apppad.com
>
[snip]

An application framework based on HTML and JavaScript will require, at
the very least, developers who can write valid HTML and solid cross-
browser JavaScript. Best of luck in finding some.

"David Mark" <> wrote in message
news:79fd2ead-10ee-41e3-8ae8-...
On Feb 19, 2:38 am, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> This is a new website I am involved with, and we are seeking to open
> up to a shortlist of users.
>
> http://apppad.com
>
[snip]

An application framework based on HTML and JavaScript will require, at
the very least, developers who can write valid HTML and solid cross-
browser JavaScript. Best of luck in finding some.

They are certainly not living at the above URL

Not even a bloody doctype!

background-color: 666666; is probably why I get my shocking pink background

On Feb 19, 3:14*am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> They are certainly not living at the above URL
>
> Not even a bloody doctype!

Yes, it is a bizarre melange of HTML 3.2 and XHTML-style markup. No
doctype (what would it be anyway?), no character encoding specified,
tables-in-tables (despite the spartan layout), no top-level headline,
&nbsp; entitities in odd places, hyperlinks that break without script,
etc., etc. The really irony here is that the pages are clearly
template-driven and very small, so they only had a to get a very
limited amount of markup right once.

Here is an interesting sample:

<a href=""><a href="#" onClick="alert('Coming soon...')"
fref="feedback.jsp?appid=28">[App Feedback]</a><br/>

Then there is the script. This is a new one:

window.onload = document.onload = appCallOnLoad;

I can see why somebody might feel compelled to do such a thing, but at
the very least there should be logic to account for the fact that
appCallOnLoad might be called twice (there isn't.)

The most shocking display of incompetence can be found on the feedback
page, which features half a dozen lines of client-side validation,
which require (drum roll please) Prototype. (!)

Developing applications to run in this framework would be akin to
developing a condo complex in a swamp.

>
> background-color: 666666; is probably why I get my shocking pink background
>

I didn't bother to look at the CSS, but that sample doesn't surprise
me. Perhaps the devil made them do it (twice.)

Back to the drawing board guys!

Thanks for the feedback. This definitely seems like a knowledgeable
group.

The goal has been to test functionality on IE6+ and Firefox2+ (will
add that info to the docs). Prototype was used for some account areas,
but not running the "Apps".

Thanks for pointing out the appCallOnLoad - will give it a further
look.


On Feb 19, 12:57*am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:14*am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > They are certainly not living at the above URL
>
> > Not even a bloody doctype!
>
> Yes, it is a bizarre melange of HTML 3.2 and XHTML-style markup. *No
> doctype (what would it be anyway?), no character encoding specified,
> tables-in-tables (despite the spartan layout), no top-level headline,
> &nbsp; entitities in odd places, hyperlinks that break without script,
> etc., etc. *The really irony here is that the pages are clearly
> template-driven and very small, so they only had a to get a very
> limited amount of markup right once.
>
> Here is an interesting sample:
>
> * * <a href=""><a href="#" onClick="alert('Coming soon...')"
> fref="feedback.jsp?appid=28">[App Feedback]</a><br/>
>
> Then there is the script. *This is a new one:
>
> window.onload = document.onload = appCallOnLoad;
>
> I can see why somebody might feel compelled to do such a thing, but at
> the very least there should be logic to account for the fact that
> appCallOnLoad might be called twice (there isn't.)
>
> The most shocking display of incompetence can be found on the feedback
> page, which features half a dozen lines of client-side validation,
> which require (drum roll please) Prototype. (!)
>
> Developing applications to run in this framework would be akin to
> developing a condo complex in a swamp.
>
>
>
> > background-color: 666666; is probably why I get my shocking pink background
> >
>
> I didn't bother to look at the CSS, but that sample doesn't surprise
> me. *Perhaps the devil made them do it (twice.)
>
> Back to the drawing board guys!

On Feb 19, 12:40*pm, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 12:57 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:14 am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > They are certainly not living at the above URL
>
> > > Not even a bloody doctype!
>
> > Yes, it is a bizarre melange of HTML 3.2 and XHTML-style markup. No
> > doctype (what would it be anyway?), no character encoding specified,
> > tables-in-tables (despite the spartan layout), no top-level headline,
> > &nbsp; entitities in odd places, hyperlinks that break without script,
> > etc., etc. The really irony here is that the pages are clearly
> > template-driven and very small, so they only had a to get a very
> > limited amount of markup right once.
>
> > Here is an interesting sample:
>
> > <a href=""><a href="#" onClick="alert('Coming soon...')"
> > fref="feedback.jsp?appid=28">[App Feedback]</a><br/>
>
> > Then there is the script. This is a new one:
>
> > window.onload = document.onload = appCallOnLoad;
>
> > I can see why somebody might feel compelled to do such a thing, but at
> > the very least there should be logic to account for the fact that
> > appCallOnLoad might be called twice (there isn't.)
>
> > The most shocking display of incompetence can be found on the feedback
> > page, which features half a dozen lines of client-side validation,
> > which require (drum roll please) Prototype. (!)
>
> > Developing applications to run in this framework would be akin to
> > developing a condo complex in a swamp.
>
> > > background-color: 666666; is probably why I get my shocking pink background
> > >
>
> > I didn't bother to look at the CSS, but that sample doesn't surprise
> > me. Perhaps the devil made them do it (twice.)
>
> > Back to the drawing board guys!

[Post order restored]

Please do not top-post. It makes it difficult to follow the
conversation.

> Thanks for the feedback. This definitely seems like a knowledgeable
> group.

Nice attitude. There may be hope for your app yet.

>
> The goal has been to test functionality on IE6+ and Firefox2+ (will

Realize you are testing in quirks mode due to the lack of a doctype.
Of course, before you add a doctype, you need to decide what flavor of
markup is appropriate for your needs (HTML 4.01 strict) and change the
existing markup so it will validate according to the chosen schema.

> add that info to the docs). Prototype was used for some account areas,
> but not running the "Apps".

Get rid of Prototype. You certainly don't need it.

>
> Thanks for pointing out the appCallOnLoad - will give it a further
> look.

Just lose the document.onload part. You don't need it.

On Feb 19, 11:48 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:40 pm, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 12:57 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 3:14 am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > They are certainly not living at the above URL
>
> > > > Not even a bloody doctype!
>
> > > Yes, it is a bizarre melange of HTML 3.2 and XHTML-style markup. No
> > > doctype (what would it be anyway?), no character encoding specified,
> > > tables-in-tables (despite the spartan layout), no top-level headline,
> > > &nbsp; entitities in odd places, hyperlinks that break without script,
> > > etc., etc. The really irony here is that the pages are clearly
> > > template-driven and very small, so they only had a to get a very
> > > limited amount of markup right once.
>
> > > Here is an interesting sample:
>
> > > <a href=""><a href="#" onClick="alert('Coming soon...')"
> > > fref="feedback.jsp?appid=28">[App Feedback]</a><br/>
>
> > > Then there is the script. This is a new one:
>
> > > window.onload = document.onload = appCallOnLoad;
>
> > > I can see why somebody might feel compelled to do such a thing, but at
> > > the very least there should be logic to account for the fact that
> > > appCallOnLoad might be called twice (there isn't.)
>
> > > The most shocking display of incompetence can be found on the feedback
> > > page, which features half a dozen lines of client-side validation,
> > > which require (drum roll please) Prototype. (!)
>
> > > Developing applications to run in this framework would be akin to
> > > developing a condo complex in a swamp.
>
> > > > background-color: 666666; is probably why I get my shocking pink background
> > > >
>
> > > I didn't bother to look at the CSS, but that sample doesn't surprise
> > > me. Perhaps the devil made them do it (twice.)
>
> > > Back to the drawing board guys!
>
> [Post order restored]
>
> Please do not top-post. It makes it difficult to follow the
> conversation.
>
> > Thanks for the feedback. This definitely seems like a knowledgeable
> > group.
>
> Nice attitude. There may be hope for your app yet.
>
>
>
> > The goal has been to test functionality on IE6+ and Firefox2+ (will
>
> Realize you are testing in quirks mode due to the lack of a doctype.
> Of course, before you add a doctype, you need to decide what flavor of
> markup is appropriate for your needs (HTML 4.01 strict) and change the
> existing markup so it will validate according to the chosen schema.
>
> > add that info to the docs). Prototype was used for some account areas,
> > but not running the "Apps".
>
> Get rid of Prototype. You certainly don't need it.
>
>
>
> > Thanks for pointing out the appCallOnLoad - will give it a further
> > look.
>
> Just lose the document.onload part. You don't need it.

Thanks again for the feedback. You are right about Prototype... it was
minimally used, so stripped it out. The doctype seems to be validating
alright as well.

Still have on the (fairly long) to-do list the onload calls. IE &
firefox didn't seem to play nicely on the same onload calls, so that
will take a bit more research on the best way to do it.

In case anyone is interested, there is now a Demo account you can try
from the AppPad homepage (which should give you a better idea what
this tool is about). The goal is to create a service that DHTML savvy
folks could use so they don't need to hassle with hosting for small
simple apps. It's true - not your everyday Joe knows this stuff, but
if it eventually helps a few folks out... then mission accomplished.

Regards, Steve

On Feb 21, 12:19*am, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks again for the feedback. You are right about Prototype... it was

Good riddance to bad baggage.

> minimally used, so stripped it out. The doctype seems to be validating
> alright as well.
>

You should really use HTML strict. The steps required to make your
document validate against that doctype will be well worth it. You
will need to replace the old-fashioned presentational markup
attributes and elements with CSS.

> Still have on the (fairly long) to-do list the onload calls. IE &
> firefox didn't seem to play nicely on the same onload calls, so that

How so? Removing the document.onload bit shouldn't have any effect on
any browser that I know of (certainly not IE or FF.)

> will take a bit more research on the best way to do it.

Not really.

window.onload = myfunction;

>
> In case anyone is interested, there is now a Demo account you can try
> from the AppPad homepage (which should give you a better idea what
> this tool is about). The goal is to create a service that DHTML savvy
> folks could use so they don't need to hassle with hosting for small
> simple apps. It's true - not your everyday Joe knows this stuff, but

Well, savvy Web developers probably already have hosting accounts.
You will need to add more value. The Flickr mashup demo is a step in
the right direction. Provide a "gallery" of mashup tools and perhaps
you will have something, but the idea isn't new.

> if it eventually helps a few folks out... then mission accomplished.
>

Best of luck.

On Feb 21, 4:19*am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> David Mark said the following on 2/21/2008 3:00 AM:
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:19 am, AppPad <sav74...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> will take a bit more research on the best way to do it.
>
> > Not really.
>
> > window.onload = myfunction;
>
> Don't let Thomas know that
>

Proprietary and error-prone approach. I know.

BTW, based on a recent post of yours, I take it that you now consider
this inferior to an onload attribute in the body tag. Something about
unobtrusive JS being a joke. Granted, it is a fairly ambiguous term
and the techniques associated with it are often misused, but I fail to
see the humor in it.