[ILUG] RE: Web browser Stats and Y2k

[kevin lyda]

Thomas Bridge wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Lee Hosty wrote:
> > well no ... i could go into this but you're just plain wrong - M$ has
> > implemented some of the standards better in IE 5 ... go look at
> > http://www.webstandards.org/ ... but before IE 5 came out Netscape 4 was
> > the better standard-bearer ... when Netscape 5 comes out it will beat the
> Frankly, Netscape have no right to criticise anyone for not sticking to
> HTML standards given that they were the ones who started the whole thing
> of browsers ignoring.

in fairness netscape extended the html standard because the original
html standard lacked a lot of things.  one example was file upload.  i
did a contract at a place where aids counselors used two apps: eudora
and netscape.  they had a web based app that would store copies of
documents that they'd load in with a paperport (very nifty gadget). 
netscape was the only browser that supported that.

my understanding was that on some levels they tried to push the
standards body to move more quickly but that doesn't really work.  for
an example look at g++ and libg++ and their relationship to the ansi c++
standards body.  there was an element within netscape that advocated for
closed standards, but for the most part i think they were open about it.

of course i still think the img tag is stupid.  embed would have been
better.

kevin

-- 
kevin at suberic.net                              Nutrition Facts
fork()'ed on 37058400		       Puns: 100% RDA  (% good puns: 0)