Take Only Pictures; Leave Only Footprints

If you've ever visited a National Park or many state parks in the United States, or been involved with a nature-oriented community group, you've likely heard that saying many times. For those who haven't, the meaning should be obvious: leave the shared place that you're moving through in at least as good condition as you found it, so that the next people to travel that way can enjoy it as much as you did.

That applies to environments other than the great outdoors, of course. The phrase popped into my mind earlier today as I was poking at a jQuery plugin to add a context menu to a Web app I'm developing.

It's great that there's so many free software tools out there; I've been using them for more than 25 years, and I've developed more than a few. Sometimes, however, one is reminded of the wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes when he said, "Learn from the mistakes of others… you can't live long enough to make them all yourself." But in the grand software tradition, we often give it our best effort.

This is a reasonably well-known plugin, one of several that offer to solve a common problem in more-or-less similar fashion. And if you use it precisely in the way that the author expected, it does the job. But even then, if you're using it in a Web app or site that customers are paying money for, you might hope that they never hit the "View Source" menu item in their browser. And, to be fair, this is not intended as a slam against Matt Kruse or his code; most of the other plugins I've looked at in the last couple of days have at least as many "quirks" and assumptions.

"It's just a context menu," I hear you say. "What could possibly go wrong?…go wrong?…go wrong?…(sound of tape snapping)" (with apologies to Westworld, a movie with many lessons on the art and craft of software development.)

If you're adding the menu to your page when it's first loaded, and you want a static menu, with the options the same for all uses of the context menu, fine. If you want a more dynamic menu, and don't mind attaching functions to the menu that know enough of the detailed state of your page/app that they can generate the properly-adjusted menu items each time the menu is displayed, that works, too. But the main assumptions are that the plugin's main method will be called once and only once on a page, and that you really don't care about the markup being added to the end of your page. The first assumption, particularly in a rich front end, is likely to be naïve; the second is, bluntly, an assault on your professionalism.

What's so bad? Here's the plugin's output for a very simple menu, reformatted for clarity:

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="display: none;">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div class="context-menu context-menu-theme-vista">
          <div class="context-menu-item " title="">
            <div class="context-menu-item-inner" style="">One</div>
          </div>
          <div class="context-menu-item " title="">
            <div class="context-menu-item-inner" style="">Two</div>
          </div>
          <div class="context-menu-item " title="">
            <div class="context-menu-item-inner" style="">Three</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<div class="context-menu-shadow" style="display: none; position: absolute; z-index: 9998; opacity: 0.5; background-color: black;"></div>

If you read HTML and CSS, you're probably nodding your head, thinking "that looks simple enough; hey, hang on a minute…" That "hang on" is where you start seeing any of several issues:

1. We have a table, containing a (rarely-used) tbody, containing a single tr, containing a single td, containing a series of nested divs which contain the menu items. If he'd implemented the entire menu as a table, he might have been able to claim that he was trying to support 1997-era browsers. (Would jQuery 1.4 work in Netscape Navigator 4?) Failing that, it's a mess. Nesting divs (or more semantically appropriate elements) has been a Solved Problem for a decade or so.

2. Even though this is implicitly intended to be fire-and-forget markup added to the DOM at page-creation time, it's disturbing that there are no identifiers for any of the table elements. If you wanted to, say, remove the table later, you'd have to use code like

   $('.context-menu').parent().parent().parent().parent().remove()

   Ick. And then you'd have to go clean up the shadow div separately.

3. Speaking of the shadow div being separate from the menu-enclosing table, why not wrap both in an (identified) div, so that you (and your clients' code) can treat the menu as a single entity?

4. Doing that would also let you dynamically delete and replace the menu, based on changes in the state of your app, without needing to define menu-item handler functions that violate the Principle of Least Knowledge.

5. Another benefit of that would be if your context menu was generated more than once (possibly because the content needed changing or items needed disabling), you'd never have more than one copy of the menu in the DOM. As it is now, you can have an arbitrarily large number, with only the most recently-added being the "active" one. Ugh. This would be more likely to happen on a dev box running a test suite, but still. Ugh.

6. Particularly in a behaviour-driven or test-driven development (BDD or TDD) environment, being able to test/validate the markup and the item-handler logic separately as well as together is important. Doing so with this plugin (and again, to be fair, most of the others) eliminates the normal-use workflow from consideration.

7. One feature of this particular plugin is that it supports having you define your own HTML for the menu and pass it in. But the example given is too simple to be useful as a menu. Browsing the plugin source code seems to indicate that there is no event-handler support for menus defined in this manner; you'd have to iterate through your context menu items, assigning event handlers for at least the click event. If you're going to do all that work, why bother with this plugin?

8. A table and divs. Enclosed and in parallel. (Careful wiping that green sludge off your monitor; that's your brain that just exploded.)

Menus are "important" enough that HTML 5 has its own set of elements dedicated just to marking up menus. However, sensible, reasonably semantic standard patterns for use with HTML 4 and XHTML 1.x have evolved that address the issues I've mentioned (among many others). The markup for the example menu above could have been written as:

  <div class="context-menu-container" id="someId">
    <ul class="context-menu context-menu-theme-vista">
      <li class="context-menu-item">
        <span class="context-menu-item-inner">One</span>
      </li>
      <li class="context-menu-item">
        <span class="context-menu-item-inner">Two</span>
      </li>
      <li class="context-menu-item">
        <span class="context-menu-item-inner">Three</span>
      </li>
    </ul>
    <div class="context-menu-shadow"></div>
  </div>

One outermost div, with an id so your plugin doesn't get confused if you have multiple menus on a page, but one div so you can work with it as a single unit. An unordered list containing list items corresponding to the menu items, since that's the closest HTML4/XHTML 1 comes to HTML5's menu semantics. The Script that builds the thing can adapt the styles and attributes at the class+id CSS level, eliminating the need for hard-coded monsterpieces such as that style attribute for the table.

If you're going to write a jQuery plugin, live in jQuery. You can dynamically modify styles, attributes, content, even whole sections of how your page is rendered in the browser, without touching the basic markup. You can put the style bits that you intend to remain constant into a CSS file and link those styles to individual DOM fragments via classes and ids. That also keeps your HTML and CSS clean and cacheable.

If we don't write clean code, then having a lightning-fast browser on a petabit-Ethernet connection won't matter; users and reviewers will still complain that "your app is slow". Think before, as, and after you code, and remember:

First, do no harm.

Web Standards DO Save, Then and Now

It's been known in the Web-development community for several years now that well-designed, semantic, standards-compliant Websites use dramatically less resources (such as bandwidth) than 1997-era tangles of nested tables and invalid HTML. But it's still refreshing to read confirmation that that truth is pretty universally applicable - especially when that reading doesn't depend on what we now know as the "latest and greatest" Web browsers.

Take, for example, this five-year-old article by Jim Ramsey, then-Webmaster of the San Francisco Examiner newspaper's Website. In the section titled Simplify, Man!, he writes:

This is what a basic link in our navigation looked like late last year, before standards:

<tr>
<td class="navmenu" height="18"
  onClick="javascript:rolloutNav(this);document.location='/home/index.cfm'"
  onMouseOver="javascript:rolloverNav(this);"
  onMouseOut="javascript:rolloutNav(this); " colspan="2">
<a href="/home/index.cfm" class="nav">HOME</a></td> </tr><tr>
<td bgcolor="#EEEEEE" class="navmenuspacer" colspan="2">
<img src="../site_images/spacer.gif" width="1" height="2"></td> </tr>

Now take a look at what an Examiner navigation link looks like now:

<li><a href="/home/">Home</a></li>

That’s a big difference. In fact, the first one is so bad, I’m almost embarrassed to include it here. And what did I get for all that extra stuff? Basically, nothing. The JavaScript triggers the rollover effect and the table cells control the spacing. All of that can be done using styles.

Let’s take another example. Here’s how a link to a story in the Arts section looked before standards:

<img src="../site_images/sfex/homekickerarrow.gif" width="6" height="8">
<span class="kicker">Movie Review: Dickie Roberts<br></span>
<a href="../templates/story.cfm?displaystory=1&storyname=090503a_dickie"
    class="headlinesm">Problem 'Child'</a>
<hr noshade size="1" color="#EEEEEE">

Here’s the same thing following standards:

<h5>Movie Review: Hero</h5>
<h4><a href="/article/index.cfm/i/082704a_hero">Holding out for a 'Hero'</a></h4>

Again, once it is styled, the second version can be made to look identical to the first. When you can simplify markup in this way, it starts to make a big difference in bandwidth.

Comparing last year’s table-based site to our new standards-based one, the amount of information on our homepage is strikingly similar. Both contain basically the same elements and yet the HTML is 13K smaller on the CSS-version at 19.6K.

As a result, even though our traffic was about 40% higher in July 2004 than in September 2003, our bandwidth was almost exactly the same for those two months.

"[E]ven though our traffic was about 40% higher...our bandwidth was almost exactly the same..." What other development practice allows you to simultaneously:

• boost your traffic by nearly half without similar increases in bandwidth costs;
• improve your search-engine results without expensive, error-prone twiddling;
• open your site to a potentially much wider audience, by not limiting what platform or browser your audience uses; and
• significantly reduce the cost and complexity of maintaining your site?

As one colleague put it in an IM discussion, "people who develop like it's 1997 shouldn't be surprised if their revenues and page views don't exceed 1997 levels. Especially if they weren't around in 1997."

I'm not (quite) to the point of some of the more, um, evangelical developers out there in equating broken, invalid sites with actionable incompetence — but if our craft has serious hopes of making it out of "hobbyist" status in the eyes of non-technical business people, to where they treat practitioners as members of a profession, then we need to get some meaningful, practical, well-defined standards. This (standard-compliant, semantic development) is at or very near the top of my list of such standards.

Final note: I find it deeply ironic that Google have apparently redesigned the posting interface for Blogger. Whereas previously I have been able to post from any Linux, Mac or iPhone browser, switch between HTML editing and WYSIWYG view, and use all the other goodness...the new CSS and JavaScript seem to fail in any of the half-dozen Mac browsers I've tested today. One step forward, two steps back is especially painful when one started by walking directly away from the very edge of a cliff.

Tools, Continued

UPDATED 2 November 2010; see last paragraph.

---

This blog, fairly obviously, is published on blogger.com, which is now owned by Google. Blogger.com is geared primarily towards people who want to write but don't want to have to worry about the nitty-gritty technical details involved (such as HTML, CSS and so on). Sign up, click the 'New Post' button, and off you go...almost easier than falling out of your chair.

For the Web wizards among you, you can get into the guts of how your blog and posts are laid out and formatted; there are several in-the-tin and numerous third-party templates that can be used to style your blog any way you like it, and those can then be hand-tweaked by you to get things just so.

As with any click-and-go interface, the Blogger new-post window (what I'm typing in right now) has a "Preview" button (or actually, link); click on it and you'll see a more-or-less-reasonable facsimile of what your breathless prose will look like to the next visitor who stumbles across your blog. I did say "more-or-less-reasonable"...

One thing the preview area doesn't do — sensibly in hindsight — is to apply your template's formatting to the post being previewed. So that, for instance, if your template specifies that you want 9-point Gentium Book Basic, Times New Roman or Times (in that order) for your body, you won't see it that way in the preview.

What you also won't see — and this is what tripped me up for the longest time — is other styling for the post body, particularly justification. You may notice that all my posts are displayed with justified left and right margins; the default, and most commonly used setting, is for a justified left and ragged right margin, which I find unattractive. I've tweaked the template I use several times over the years to try and get the effect I was looking for. Each time, the post-preview showed no changes to the text formatting, and so I undid the change without viewing the entire blog normally. I have been instead hand-wrapping the content of an entire post in a <div>...</div> element pair whose only reason for existence was to set text-align: justify;.

This isn't the first time I've blogged about my learning-experiences-that-shouldn't-have-been, and just to be perfectly clear about this, I'm not trying to dis Blogger.com about this. The preview-while-composing feature is merely to let you see the content of the post you're working on without all the editing framework around it. It won't, and arguably shouldn't try to render that content in its final form. You do, after all, have the ability to go back and edit posts you've already published.

This is, at its heart, a cautionary tale for those of us tasked with making the Web easier to use for a wide variety of users. Be careful especially with interface design. Recognise that, barring explicit cues to the contrary, people's assumptions about How Things Work on your site may have only a nodding acquaintance with your own — but if you have some appropriate description in the right place, users are often happy to adjust. But there has to be a balance, or your 'power users' will feel like they're being stifled. How you achieve that balance is, of course, up to you to find out. Good luck.

UPDATE: Blogger have, since I wrote the original post, changed their preview feature (at least for "Blogger in Draft," their next-gen interface, which I use and recommend.) When you click the Preview button now, Blogger opens a new tab (or window, if you're old-school enough not to use tabs) with the preview of your draft post. This preview is exactly as a visitor to the published post would see it, with the exception of a great big Preview stripe in the upper-left corner. A wonderful improvement; thanks, guys!

Another item from the "That's obvious - in hindsight" dept.

Since upgrading to Safari 4 (why haven't you yet?), I ran into a problem with the single add-in that I've bothered keeping in Safari — Pith Helmet. If you're familiar with AdBlock Plus on Firefix, you've got the basic idea; an add-in to your browser(s) of choice that lets you block advertising, annoying Flash, or pretty much anything else you can identify by file name (e.g., "*.swf*) or by URL (e.g., "http://www.doubleclick.net"), and "magically" removes it from the final content displayed by your browser. This feature has gotten so popular that several browsers are building in more-or-less-competent versions of it by default.

Getting back to the problem... PithHelmet, the Safari ad blocker, was incompatible with Safari 4 because the framework it depended on, called SIMBL, has not had an update since October 2006 — which, as far as Safari or WebKit, equates to "forever". So I do a Google search for "greasekit safari 4", and then start whittling down the results (English language only, please, and only within the last year). Eventually, I ran across a forum post (which I have since lost) saying basically "Yes, PH crashes Safari 4 but has anybody else tried out Fanboy's AdBlock CSS sheet?"

Which, if you know anything about Web development, should have sent the palm of your hand rocketing toward your forehead in a major "D'oh! moment. Of course! Why didn't I (or we all) think of that about 6 or 8 years back?

For those of you who aren't as knowledgeable about the detailed workings of your browser, let me explain. Every Web browser, probably since at least Netscape 1.0, has included support for "user style sheets"; where individual users (or organisations of such users) can choose to instruct their browsers to display certain specific content differently than it was originally specified. For this to work, the user in question (or someone s/he depends on) have to be very literate in HTML and particularly CSS, the languages of Web pages. To do simple blocking, like 'block all SWF files", isn't hard with modern browsers, but the Web developers themselves can make life significantly easier by following modern "best practices". The "practices" particularly relevant here are "add 'id' attributes to all structural and semantic elements." (hmm; what's the difference between that and "all elements"? Another blog post...) If the developer does that, including for the body tag, then it's very easy for even a neophyte user to start filtering just what's wanted.... and learn something about how Web pages work into the bargain.

Thanks for reading — and commenting.

Professionalism, Web development, and giving oxy to morons

Whereas a poor craftsman will blame his tools, poor tools will handicap even the most skilled craftsman.

As I insinuated in my previous post, I'm getting up to speed on the Zend Framework, the "900-kg elephant" of PHP application frameworks.

One major bone I have to pick with the ZF team is with regard to documentation: each time I've checked the site in the last couple of months, there's been an apparently current HTML version (now clocking in at some 300 HTML pages). There is also a PDF version, the promise of which is used as an enticement to register for their content distribution network (and, presumably, marketing info). As of this moment, however, the framework is at version 1.8.0, but the PDF version of the programmer's reference manual only covers version 1.6.0 (from September, 2008); some 12 releases earlier. It no longer fully matches the actual code, to the point where it is not difficult for a new developer to get deeply confused.

After spending a half-hour browsing the HTML version of the document, I am unable to find any declaration as to which version of the Framework is documented. However, the README.TXT file included with the source distribution states that it covers the 1.8 release, revision 15226, released on April 30, 2009. Classes which are listed in the README as being new, such as Zend_Filter_Encrypt, are documented in the HTML programmer's guide. Establishing a match between the (HTML) doc and the current code is non-trivial, however. While it may be argued that people unfamiliar with browsing a Subversion repository are not likely to be common within Zend's target audience, I would indirectly refute that: a product release, particularly one with a strong industry following, should be

• properly documented;
• easy for a (prospective) user to verify that he has the complete package; and
• with a definite, intuitive learning curve.

In my view, the Zend Framework fails on at least two of these points. The assertion within large segments of the PHP community that it is the "gold standard" of PHP application frameworks should be a disturbing, cautionary omen: if Web development, particularly PHP development, wishes to be taken seriously by the software industry at large, then some major improvements and attitude shifts need to occur quickly, publicly and effectively. It is still far too easy for potential developers outside the "early-adopter" leading edge to scoff that PHP development (and, by extension, Web development as a whole) is still far too immature and amateurish to be taken seriously. As someone who has developed professionally in PHP for some ten years now, that is a disturbing state of affairs; one that I would love to see (and participate in) a free-ranging discussion of.

OMFG, or Holy Deforestation, Batman!

As some of you know, I'm working on a book on Web development, using off-the-shelf tools (frameworks, template engines, JavaScript libraries, etc.) to leverage semantic, standards-compliant, accessible, search-friendly Websites. (That's more a matter of adjusting your development philosophy and workflow than anything else, but I digress). As part of that, I'e been doing a (reasonably) comprehensive review of PHP 5 application frameworks. You might have heard of ezComponents or CakePHP, but the 900-kg elephant in the room is definitely the Zend Framework. It ships with the Dojo JavaScript toolkit, but doesn't make it excessively difficult to mix and match others (Scriptaculous, Prototype, jQuery, etc.) if desired.

And here's another reason to call ZF the '900-kg elephant' — the programmer's reference guide (for version 1.7) weighs in at a <sarcasm>svelte</sarcasm> 1170 pages. Don't print this at home, folks. Better yet, just don't print it... either browse it online or download the PDF. Save a forest or six. For you old-timers, this will remind you quite a bit of US DOD Standard 2167A, "fondly" remembered as "documentation by the boxcar load".

Modern Tools and Archaic Practices Shouldn't Mix

Sun have released NetBeans 6.5, which, among many other (potentially) useful and interesting features, claims to officially support Web development using PHP. This is, on the face of things, a major improvement from the situation under NB 6.1 and prior, which treated PHP essentially as other unsupported languages were treated: you could do raw text editing, but the features that are the entire point of using an IDE - auto-completion, search/cross-reference, and so on - were completely absent. Not so in 6.5; at least minimal support for features like code completion, auto-display of PHPDoc during code entry, and so on can be found here. After a few minutes of poking around, I was starting to get optimistic; here was a decent, if somewhat more heavyweight, alternative to the Komodo Edit which I had been using for some months. Why look for alternatives when I was extremely happy with Komodo Edit for the Mac? Because, almost every day, I sat down in front of Komodo Edit for Linux, and became frustrated with the inconsistencies, limitations and general less-polished feel (Why can't ActiveState include KE for Mac key emulation along with vi and emacs?)

So, back to NetBeans and PHP. I spent a few minutes putting together toy code just to see how the editor felt. Then I created the really one-and-only sample PHP project that came with NB 6.5, a site for a fictional India-based budget airline. Go through the 'New Project' wizard, select the project type, the directory to be used to contain the entire thing (for development, at least), and hit The Magic "Finish" Button.

And, voilà, a new project is born:

At first blush, nothing too obviously catastrophic. Rather non-semantic names for the image files, and the files under 'include' generally presume that you'll only ever need one nav bar, for example, but hey, it's a sample project, I tell myself. It's not necessarily meant to be production-quality; it's supposed to give you a starting point to either see how to use NetBeans to work in the PHP you already know, or how to use this PHP that's all over the Web in the NetBeans you've been using earlier versions of.

And then I double-click on the index.php file in the Projects pane. And my jaw hits the floor as I see... 1996-ASP-style intermingling of PHP code and raw HTML. OK, the DTD is from 1999 and the PHP code uses superglobals, which date from 2001, but you get the idea.

We've spent the better part of a decade, as a craft, running screaming away from this style of work. No sane, experienced PHP developer would write code like this today; we may not have (quite) advanced to the point where "everybody" uses the same tools for similar projects, but separation of presentation (HTML) and logic (PHP) is pretty universally seen as not just a Good Thing® but a Necessary Thing® if the site is ever going to be debugged/maintained. There are just so many problems that conmingled code and markup create, unnecessarily, in living code. I'm well aware that a 'toy' example for a general-purpose editor-with-benefits can not (and arguably should not) try to teach tyros the basics of the language in question.

But is it really too much to ask that such an example be written in a reasonably modern and correct style, or at least put big red (say, 144-point Comic Sans) warnings to the effect, "DANGER: If you don't know why this is  horrible practice, please go buy a book! The job you save may well be your own."

Still using the free Komodo Edit on the Mac, trying to justify shelling out for the "real" Komodo IDE... but that's a deliberation for another post.

Standard Standards Rant, Redux: Why the World-Wide Web Isn't "World-Wide" Any More

The "World Wide Web", to the degree that it was ever truly universal, has broken down dramatically over the last couple of years, and it's our mission as Web development professionals to stand up to the idiots that think that's a Good Thing. If they're inside our organization, either as managers or as non-(Web-)technical people, we should patiently explain why semantic markup, clean design, accessibility and (supporting all of the above) standards compliance are Good for Business. (As the mantra says, "Google is your most important blind customer," because your prospective customers who know what they're looking for but don't yet know who they're buying it from find you that way.) Modern design patterns also encourage more efficient use of bandwidth (that you're probably paying for), since there's less non-visible, non-semantic data in a properly designed nest of divs than in an equivalent TABLE structure. Modern design also encourages consistent design among related pages (one set of stylesheets for your entire site, one for your online product-brochure pages, and so on). Pages that look like they're related and are actually related reassure the user that he hasn't gotten lost in the bowels of your site (or strayed off into your competitor's). It's easier to make and test changes that affect a specified area within your site (and don't affect others). It's easier to add usability improvements, such as letting users control text size), when you've separated content (XHTML) from presentation (CSS and, in a pinch, JavaScript). Easier-to-use Web sites make happier users, who visit your site more often and for longer periods, and buy more of your stuff.

Experienced Web developers know all this, especially if they've been keeping up with the better design sites and blogs such as A List Apart. But marketing folks, (real) engineers and sales people don't, usually, and can't really be expected to -- any more than a typical Web guy knows about internal rate of return or plastic injection molding in manufacturing. But you should be able to have intelligent conversations with them, and show them why 1997 Web design isn't usually such a good idea any more. (For a quick Google-eye demo, try lynx).  Management, on the other hand, in the absence of PHBs and management by magazine, should at least be open to an elevator pitch. Make it a good one; use business value (that you can defend as needed after the pitch).

That's all fine, for dealing with entrenched obsolescence within your own organization. What about chauvinism outside — from sites you depend on professionally, socially or in some combination? For years, marginalized customers have quietly gone elsewhere, with at most a plaintive appeal to the offenders, pointing out that a good chunk of Windows usees don't browse with Internet Explorer anymore (check out the linked article; a major business-tech Website from 2004(!!); the arguments are much stronger now). But some companies, particularly Microsoft-sensitive media sites like CNet and its subsidiary ZDNet, still don't work right when viewed with major non-Windows browsers (even when the same browser, such as Opera or Safari, works just fine with that site from Windows). And then there are the sites for whom their Web presence is the entire company, but they haven't yet invested the resources into competent design required to take their site construction from a point-and-drool interface virtually incapable of producing standards-compliant work, and instead present a site that a) actively checks for IE and snarls at you if you're using anything else, and b) has their design so badly broken and inaccessible that people stay away in droves. (Yes, I'm looking at you — every click opens a new window).

When we encounter Web poison like this, we should take the following actions:

• Notify the site owner that we will use a better (compatible, accessible, etc.) site, with sufficient details that your problem can be reproduced (flamemail that just says "Teh site sux0rs, d00d!" is virtually guaranteed to be counterproductive);
• When you find an acceptable substitute, let that site's owners know how they earned your patronage. Send a brief thank-you note to one or two of their large advertisers (if any), as well as to the advertisers on the site you've left (if you know any). Politely thank them for supporting good Web sites, or remind them why their advertising won't be reaching you anymore (as appropriate);
• Finally, there really ought to be a site (if there isn't already) where people can leave categorized works/doesn't-work-for-me notes about sites they've visited. This sounds an awful lot like the original argument for Yahoo!; I can see where such a review site would either die of starvation or grow to consume massive resources. But praise and shame are powerful inducements in the offline world; it's long past time to wield them effectively online.

I'm sure that there are literally millions of sites with Web poison out there, and likely several "beware" sites as well. For the record, the two that wasted enough of my week this week to deserve special dishonor are ZDNet and JobStreet. Guys, even Microsoft doesn't lock people out and lock browsers up the way you do; I can browse MSDN and Hotmail just fine on my Mac, on an old PC with Linux, or on an Asus Eee. And if you need help, I and several thousand others like me are just an email away. :-)

It's easy to think there's a war going on...

(playing softly, in the background of my mind, The Beatles'Revolution)

....between the Web developers promoting nice, clean development with RESTful, semantic (X)HTML judiciously enhanced with CSS and JavaScript (henceforth often referred to as the "Army of Light") and those using "popular", "mainstream" frameworks such as CakePHP and the Zend Framework, who route everything through a Front Controller of some sort, and often seem to be in the dubious company of WS-Whatever Web services (which, I am reliably told, provide ample amounts of The Wrong Kind of job security — they know more about your app than you do, and aren't telling what they know). The sides would seem to be pretty cut-and-dried, judging from a lot of the blog activity (Google REST XML-RPC PHP to get a million and a half or so hits of light reading material). Except...

Briefly skimming through the Zend Framework documentation, for instance, and looking at the QuickStart and tutorials reinforces the idea that URL handling is routed through a front controller to an application-specific action controller, which is the C in the notorious (and some say overused) MVC (model-view-controller) framework. Originally developed to help improve desktop-application development, particularly in languages like Java and Smalltalk, it became popular for Web development because.... it seemed like a good idea at the time. Actually, for Web development in the Pleistocene (say, late-1990s), it was a good idea. Anything that cut through the estimated 27.612 interconnected details that needed to be simultaneously mastered to get a "Hello, World" EJB up and happy was, by its very existence, a Very Good Thing. And so, when shops moved to more productive, less pathologically irrational development systems than J2EE, the models and design patterns that had saved their bacon were brought over into the New World, to maintain conceptual touchstones that helped Useful Work Get Done. Happiness abounded throughout the realm, until apps started outgrowing the meager bounds of static HTML and became "Rich Internet Applications". (To the tune of "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!", you hear faint murmurs of "AJAX and WS-* and REST, Oh My!") And, to pile on the snowclones, there really be dragons there.

'Dragons' in the form of falling into a GET-centric, action-oriented, everything-just-a-click-away world of convoluted Web apps with limited (re)usability and even less understandability to those who haven't swum there in some time. The entire promise of REST is simple: by centering applications around resources, rather than actions (through the use of URIs; Universal Resource Identifiers) and following the eminently sensible notion of not putting kilobytes of state information into those URIs (necessary information is POSTed along with the URI request), many problems that become painfully visible in large systems, simply go away. (Try sending a link to a cool book you found on Amazon over an instant messenger chat.)

But a typical, outsourced-development, haven't-really-used-this-tool-and-you-want-it-WHEN?!? developer isn't going to think of those things. He's going to grab a tool that has promising-sounding Google hits, run through a tutorial or two, and then plunge into the Son of the Enhancement of the Rewrite of yehey.com, with the customer sending him an "is it done yet?" email every six minutes. Clean design? What's that? Well-guarded state transitions? Who's got time to even understand that, let alone implement it? If we don't get it done, the customer's going to pull the project and send it to Vietnam or somewhere...

Just to make one point absolutely clear: I don't mean to be picking on Zend and CakePHP as being more than simply representative of widely-used, well-reputed tools that can be used to get the unwary, rushed developer (are there any other kind earning a paycheck?). While it is entirely practical to write semantic, RESTful Web applications in both frameworks (and both document how to do so), it's like, say, RPG; a fantastic tool for solving problems in a well-defined domain, usable with significant effort outside that domain, and Zeus help you if you use it to write an MMORPG.

The real point of this rant, if it hasn't hit you like a Muhammad Ali speed-anchor punch, is another pout over the state into which we've allowed the once-honorable craft of software development (of which Web development is but a specific case) into absolute bollocks. We've allowed the pay-any-price-to-cut-costs, pinch-a-penny-until-you-can-hear-it-scream-from-Boise-to-Bangalore idiots pervert us from Muhammad Ali (or at least Sonny Liston) into Herschel Shmoikel Pinkus Yerucham Krustofski. A plurality, if not yet an overwhelming majority of those who call themselves "software development 'engineers'" have been given neither sufficient formal training in their craft nor the resources (time, money, support, etc.) to continue learning as they go. "If you can spell EJB and ERP, you're the guy for us — as long as you're young and dirt cheap. And when you're done with that, we've got some BASIC code we want in Java instead."

So at the unique moment in history when ephemeral intellectual artifacts have assumed primacy in a wide range of human affairs, the humans whose intellect is responsible for their creation and correct functioning have progressively less ability to do the job properly. The way that, if they sit back and think for a moment, they know should be possible, has to be possible in any sort of rational omniverse whatsoever. But few, if any, ever get that chance for reflection. Fewer still, having reflected, researched and enlightened themselves, are welcomed back into the paying ranks who toil away at this once-noble craft.

And my Zend Framework code still feels slimy. It's not Zend's fault, at least, not entirely. Front controllers are good; front controllers are your friends; front controllers are.... *crunch!*

Good Things are good things....aren't they?

Anybody who's worked with me over the last 20 years or so knows that I generally evangelize conforming to standards when they exist, are relevant and widely agreed on. As the famous quote from Andrew Tanenbaum (in Computer Networks, 2/e, p. 254) reminds us, "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." When "standards" are used to promote vendor agendas (e.g., Microsoft force-feeding OOXML to a hapless ISO) or when they go against the common sense built up through hard-won experience by practitioners. And when multiple standards for a product or activity exist, and those standards are each widely used by various users (who could have chosen other alternatives), and when those standards conflict with each other in important ways that can't be amicably resolved, then those "standards" cause reasonable people to not merely question their validity, but, too often, the entire concept of "standards".

As any developer who's worked in more than one shop, or sometimes even on more than one project in a shop, knows, coding standards are sometimes arbitrary, often the prizes and products of epic bureaucratic struggle, and (in the absence of automated enforcement such as PHP CodeSniffer) often honored more in the breach than the compliance. What makes things even more "fun" is conflicting standards. It's not all that unusual for a company to contract out for development work, specifying that their coding standards be complied with (since they're the customer and they're going to maintain, or control maintenance of, the code). If the contractor has their own set of standards that conflict with the customer's, then problems arise with internal process compliance, customer involvement and final delivery. It can be — and too often is — a sorry mess. Simple code reformatting problems can be taken care of with a pretty-printer program; oftentimes, though, one sees entire programs (which have to be debugged, documented and maintained) developed just to "translate" one format to another. Many shops just give up, declare the project to be an exception or exemption from their own internal standards and processes, and try to conform to the customer's demands. "Try to", since their developers, both writing and reviewing the code, are going to be fighting against it tooth and nail because it just "feels wrong".

This whole rant was inspired by reading through yet another coding-standard document; this one the Zend Framework PHP Coding Standard. One item in particular struck me as counter-intuitive. In Item B.2.1.1, PHP File Formatting — General, it says:

For files that contain only PHP code, the closing tag ("?>") is never permitted. It is not required by PHP. Not including it prevents trailing whitespace from being accidentally injected into the output.

Experienced PHP developers are quite likely to have problems with this, not least because it conflicts with earlier behavior of the PHP interpreter and with tools that expect well-formed code. This is one of the oddities which tools like the aforementioned PHP CodeSniffer need to take into account. (There are other, more blatant "yellow flags"

If you're in a shop which takes standards seriously, uses PEAR code and uses the Zend Framework, your code review meetings are likely quite interesting.

• "OK, we're going to look at foodb.class.php first, and then the others I mentioned in the email yesterday."
• "Which standard does it use?"
• "Well, it ties in with PDO, so it ought to follow the PEAR standard, right?"
• "OK, that sounds reasonable."

As the meeting continues...

• "Hey, what's this at the end of omnibar.class.php? There's no 'close-PHP' tag! If we start using the code-search Wiki plugin that the Bronx Project folks keep raving about, it's not going to like that...."
• "Oh, yeah, but that's because  it uses all this Zend Framework stuff, so we use Zend's coding conventions... see that comment at the top about how to run CodeSniffer?"
• "Riiiiight...."

and so on. Weren't process and standards supposed to make development easier and more reliable?

I agree with the sentiment, apocryphally attributed to one or another of numerous software gurus, that, in the presence of otherwise adequate and sufficient standards, we shouldn't be so "egotistical" as to think developing a "better" standard than others already have is worth our time; take what's already out there, adapt as necessary, and move forward. The trick, of course, is in evaluating that condition, "otherwise adequate and sufficient." Also, since our craft is (hopefully) continuing to advance and adopt standard patterns for things done before, striking out on your own (after careful consideration) demands that the question be revisited from time to time. What are other development groups using (broadly) similar techniques to solve (broadly) similar problems using? Is a consensus forming, and do we have anything useful to say about it? Or has a single standard already taken hold, and we can take advantage of it (at least for new or reworked code)?

Code analyzers like lint and PHP CodeSniffer can be amazingly useful. But for them to function as standard/policy enforcement tools, there must be a standard, or a small group of similar standards for them to enforce. When development teams have to juggle between incompatible standards, it discourages them from following any standards. And in that direction lie... the 1970s.