unable to use right click in Opera at left menu items

Quote from: TimGS at Jul 26, 2010, 12:02 PM

For the record, unless I am mistaken in which case apologies in advance, "oncontextmenu" is not specified by the W3C and to use it involves defying web standards.

If IE, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome support it and Opera and Konquerer do not, I would argue that Opera and Konqueror are the ones defying web standards. I think we can all accept that true standards are defined by community and consensus based on reality, not by a single organization or committee. For instance, Quicksmode considers the contextmenu event a cross-browser event by this definition:

Definition: cross-browser events are supported by IE and at least two of the following three browsers: Firefox, Safari, Opera.

Quote from: TimGS at Jul 26, 2010, 12:02 PM

Incidentally, I have come across this after encountering an Opera/Revolution problem - I use Opera for personal use and Firefox for development due to the existence of Firebug (I have only just started using Revolution, and gather I may have another problem there). I ensure that sites I produce work in all major browsers - of which Opera is one. 2% of the internet is still alot of people, and I don’t feel that expecting them to just ’use another installed browser’ is a solution.

Unfortunately for those of us with this philosophy, I am getting the impression I may encounter some problems.

If you choose to defy standards and not use a browser that the default Revolution manager interface supports, then you may indeed. Then again, this has nothing to do with anything but using the manager; you can create sites in MODx without using oncontextmenu all you want.

Definition: cross-browser events are supported by IE and at least two of the following three browsers: Firefox, Safari, Opera.

That sounds like cherry picking of words to me, and very possibly a misquoting - at least a misleading quoting - of the Quirksmode site which has never to my knowledge sought to define ’web standards’ itself.

I think we can all accept that true standards are defined by community and consensus based on reality, not by a single organization or committee.

There is not, and has never been, a consensus. [Edit: The vast majority of talk about defining web standards refers to the w3c specs in the first instance. However I shouldn’t and won’t refer to this as consensus as clearly at least some people disagree otherwise I wouldn’t be typing this.]

At one extreme is the philosophy that says as most people use IE, IE defines reality and we should all use it - and if people choose to use a standards compliant browser they should just accept that for some sites they must go and start up IE. Luckily this at least is all but gone.

I realise that the above IE only philosophy has been replaced by an IE, Firefox, and Safari-if-we-really-have-to philosophy in many and very possibly a majority of places, but that is not adhering to web standards anymore than the once dominant IE-only view.

Many (Edit: I think most) would say that the W3C specs define web standards. Its certainly what I’ve come to regard as web standards. A standard has to be definitive, otherwise its makes a nonsense of the term ’standard’.

If you choose to defy standards...

Again, I take serious issue with the start of this sentence. Not only are you ignoring the W3C specs, but you then are turning round to myself someone as who does and trying to define me as someone who defies web standards.

-- Tim.

Quote from: TimGS at Jul 28, 2010, 06:25 AM

That sounds like cherry picking of words to me, and very possibly a misquoting - at least a misleading quoting - of the Quirksmode site which has never to my knowledge sought to define ’web standards’ itself.

Call it what you want, but us choosing to use a feature (for very valid reasons) that a small percentage of browsers refuse to implement while the ones a majority of actual people use do, has nothing to do with the "web standards" and everything to do with "community-accepted standards".

Quote from: TimGS at Jul 28, 2010, 06:25 AM

I think we can all accept that true standards are defined by community and consensus based on reality, not by a single organization or committee.

There is not, and has never been, a consensus. [Edit: The vast majority of talk about defining web standards refers to the w3c specs in the first instance. However I shouldn’t and won’t refer to this as consensus as clearly at least some people disagree otherwise I wouldn’t be typing this.]

At one extreme is the philosophy that says as most people use IE, IE defines reality and we should all use it - and if people choose to use a standards compliant browser they should just accept that for some sites they must go and start up IE. Luckily this at least is all but gone.

I realise that the above IE only philosophy has been replaced by an IE, Firefox, and Safari-if-we-really-have-to philosophy in many and very possibly a majority of places, but that is not adhering to web standards anymore than the once dominant IE-only view.

Many (Edit: I think most) would say that the W3C specs define web standards. Its certainly what I’ve come to regard as web standards. A standard has to be definitive, otherwise its makes a nonsense of the term ’standard’.

I am not going to get into a religious or political debate with you on the issue of browsers implementing W3C web standards (I too believe these standards are very important) or the definition of the term standard. Just try to take your focus away from the blinding light of idealism and take a look at the practical needs of our administration interface, and the actual technical issues we’ve already pointed out. When we have a practical solution, we will support another method.

Quote from: TimGS at Jul 28, 2010, 06:25 AM

If you choose to defy standards...

Again, I take serious issue with the start of this sentence. Not only are you ignoring the W3C specs, but you then are turning round to myself someone as who does and trying to define me as someone who defies web standards.

Well I guess I took serious issue with you claiming we were defying web standards when we described why we didn’t support it; don’t dish out what you can’t take. In fact I challenge you to find another CMS that let’s you build to whatever version of the standards you want. Besides, if you’ll read it again, I said defy standards: as in standards defined by the MODx community for using the MODx Revolution manager interface that ships with the core; not the "W3C web standards".

Call it what you want, but us choosing to use a feature (for very valid reasons) that a small percentage of browsers refuse to implement while the ones a majority of actual people use do, has nothing to do with the "web standards" and everything to do with "community-accepted standards".

I think we are perhaps getting away from my original point, but I would like to see substantiation, or at least clarification, of what you mean by "community-accepted standards".

However as you refer to:

...standards defined by the MODx community...

... then I think it fair to refer to http://modxcms.com/forums/index.php/topic,869.120/viewResults.html. Almost 20% of forum users are using browsers other than IE/Firefox/Safari. Whether the forum represents the MODx community (a term that in itself is open to different interpretations) as a whole is not proven, but its reasonable recent, and is at the end of the day, evidence.

Of course no one can be expected to test every browser in the world, but W3C standards exist for this reason. Choosing to use something outside W3C specs that is essential for functionality is asking for problems with the browsers you cannot practically test.

This specific issue (I refer to oncontextmenu; see my first post above) affected Opera users i.e. 11%, and was inevitably going to do so.

However you describe this situation this does not square with "consensus" and "community accepted standards". If you mean that a majority of users can use the manager in their prefered browser, then fair enough, you are clearly correct in that, but that is not by any definition, consensus. Consensus may not always be open to precise measurement, but in no way does it mean a straight majority.

Besides, if you’ll read it again, I said defy standards...

OK, sure, with hindsight maybe I jumped to a conclusion - apologies are offered - but to be fair you wrote an ambigious statement. If you are instead claiming that I defy ’MODx community’ standards by using Opera, fair enough, the truth of that depends on what exactly you mean by ’MODx community’ and is discussed above.

Well I guess I took serious issue with you claiming we were defying web standards when we described why we didn’t support it

Sorry, but being brutally honest I still make that claim - not because of Opera specifically, because of departure from W3C specs.

The subject to which I was replying (web standards) appears to be having its meaning changed as this thread continues.

Some quotes about specifically web standards (the subject of the statement that prompted my original posting above), from those who should know. Sure, its not all about the W3C, but I’m pretty sure that related groups would refer to W3C specs as definitive. Standards are useless if everyone makes their own.

http://www.webstandards.org/about/mission/

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), along with other groups and standards bodies, has established technologies for creating and interpreting web-based content. These technologies, which we call “web standards,” are carefully designed to deliver the greatest benefits to the greatest number of web users while ensuring the long-term viability of any document published on the Web

http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abdesign3.html#standards

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the focal point for web standards...

As you can see, I am quite disappointed with your approach to this issue, and I posted above because of a genuine concern. I have used MODx Evo for over two years, and I have a positive view of that one, for which I offer a big thank you.

I think it fair to conclude you disagree with my views above, but I have aired them - and such feedback is offered so it can be considered constructively. Its obviously your prerogative to write your software how you wish, and as such after listening to my feedback its your prerogative to decide if its worth taking any notice of.

Unless you have specific points you wish me to answer in turn, I suspect that we have both made our points of view clear and I’ll let you have the last word in answer to my points above (if you wish to).

All the best,

-- Tim.

PS. I can’t honestly say I know of a CMS which definitely supports web standards in terms of W3C specs. For over two years I have not deemed it worthwhile looking elsewhere. However, should Evo ever be discontinued, then I would (for a number of reasons) at the moment be looking elsewhere than Revo. I’m not just saying that - thats my genuine take on things. Again I offer it as feedback. To avoid going way off the OP’s post within this thread (which we probably have done already) I am happy to elaborate on other points by PM or separate thread should you wish.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts. They are appreciated, and I can tell you’ve put a lot of thought into them. We do appreciate your input.

I am the lead developer for the UI portion of MODx, and would like you to know my official position on it. We decided to use ExtJS/Sencha for MODx, including the use of context menus, in our default manager theme. We understand this may not fit 100% of pure w3c web standards. However, when weighing the values, we found that using the contextmenu event was going to provide us more benefit than not, and so far proved our decision has proved to be the right one, in terms of general usability, flexibility and power.

I personally believe the way of the web is going more toward rich-applications that compete with desktop clients. However, you can feel free to disagree with me on this one.

MODx only uses Sencha for its default manager theme. Someone could easily make and distribute a manager template that doesnt use context menus. MODx doesn’t limit you there.

That said, we have chosen to use Sencha in the default, and that decision is here to stay. If this prevents you from using MODx, we are sorry and hope that someone develops a non-context menu item, patches the current so it can work both ways, or you find a system that works for you.

Thanks again, and we hope to see you around more.

-Shaun