First review of Aperture

I'll raise your comment Brady, and raise you with a nother fun fact... Aperture uses WebCore somewhere. Where, we don't know. But somewhere. When I heard about it, (it was featured on Surfing Safari, so I fell into that fun black hole of productivity) I looked at the other applications that leveraged webkit. http://wiki.opendarwin.org/index.php/WebKit:Applications_using_WebKit Some makes sence, but where are they using that framework? So the developer in me is starting ask questions like, "Can I make an interface that is display based in XHTML and just adjust what the Canvas has within it?" "If that's what they are doing with Aperture, What's stopping the rest of us from doing the same thing". Well, that and "Is there hope for Web Objects?" But I digress. Where are they using WebCore? Oh, and I don't work at Apple,(nor know anyone who works there I think), so if I am right, its just the rantings of a fanboy who wants to work at Apple one day. {wish&&hope}

WASP'll hit that in a week minimum:) It's coding is surprising -- both intelligient and downright stupid. I agree, there's no excuse for the uppercase tags (and whoever did that at apple, well, you're not a web professional indeed), the table is a little redudant (can't style a list people?), and the inline styles... ...but I'll give it this. I'm shocked to see a definition list in full use (though slightly off) -- that's something we don't see everyday. Including headers in proper organization. So what do you need to do apple? Here goes: 1) No need for inline styles when it's automated -- dump it in the head if you must or in that external sheet like I see you have. 2) bordering on divitis, I argue for this style barely one is needed 3) why class most of those elements? It's an automated system for god sakes, I don't see why you just couldn't style the DD and DT respectively 4) If you're going to serve up XHTML as HTML in your Content-Type, then just go back to HTML and do it properly 5) Which leads us to as they said above -- no need for strict doctype if you're not going to adhere to strict standards. With so many unneeded classes, id's and simply mistakes -- it's an embarrassment to the team who went Acid 2 first, publicly. I'd assume that not all of apple teams are talking on this one?

That's what I thought. Now all I have to do is face the developers and say with a straight face, "I don't care Apple doesn't stick to standards. We do, so use *$(#ing lowercase tags!!!" Any bets on how soon WASP goes indepth on this one?

Exactly! 121 errors, all of the tags uppercase and the doctype is XHTML 1.0 Strict. That is embarassing. Why would you use a strict doctype when it would be so easy to use transitional and not embarass yourself in the standards department?

i saw Aperture at mac expo in london looks like a pro version of iphoto

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of XHTML Strict spec (and if memory serves, all of XHTML X.X spec for that matter), say that all tags and attributes supposed to be lower case? If so, Apple, please, please, please let the devs who want to deploy this on a large scale site write out the export XSL stuff.

Web Gallery doesn't validate. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jennandlucien.net%2Flucien%2Fimages%2Faperture_gallery%2Findex.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline