Internet Explorer 2.0 beta - Mozilla Killer?
lee s. bumgarner
> May be old news but if you're running Windows 95 check out the 2.0
> beta version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Supports the 'maverick'
> Netscape HTML extensions and more besides, including watermarks,
> scrolling 'marquee' boxes and in-line .avi. Check it out.
>
> http://www.windows.microsoft.com/windows/ie/beta.htm
It will be a sad day in Mudville when Mozilla is dethroaned (sp) by Rodan.
INEX goes totally against the concept of an open Web. I have begun to
reigin myself to M$ taking over the Web either via INEX or Blackbird.
IF Mozilla 2.0 ever comes out, then we have a chance at defeating M$
when it comes to groupware. One reason the Web has gotten M$'s attention,
other than Netscape IPO is it is way for it to inadvertently kill off
Notes.
-l
--
-----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <--------
Clam's sux, Xenu is kewl* We are all blind cavefish in the uterus of love.* LSB
Anselm Lingnau
lee s. bumgarner <LSBU...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu> wrote:
> IF Mozilla 2.0 ever comes out, then we have a chance at defeating M$
> when it comes to groupware.
It seems to me that hoping for Netscape to `defeat' Microsoft is like
driving the devil away with Beelzebub.
Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lin...@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture. --- George Carlin
Tomas Dylan Clark
>It seems to me that hoping for Netscape to `defeat' Microsoft is like
>driving the devil away with Beelzebub.
In general I agree with you, but there seem to be a few
differences in the two companies' "HTML strategies" that might make
one or the other the lesser of two evils. Which one, I'm not sure.
Let's see if I can make some guesses now (and that's all these are):
NETSCAPE
Original Strategy: Make up new flashy tags. They may or may
not have known about everything in HTML 3.0, but
regardless they figured their ideas were the way to
go. So tags appeared such as <CENTER>, instead of
the standard <P ALIGN=CENTER>, even though the
standard was around beforehand and they do practically
the same thing. Instead of working on stylesheets
they take a shortcut and hack out <FONT SIZE=> tags,
and other kludgey improvisations. As a joke, someone
makes the <BLINK> tag, but it's discovered and abused
all too soon. Netscape extensions are spread and
the standard "Netscape-enhanced" look develops: it's
nifty, it's kewl, it really annoys some people.
Netscape also includes some real features of 3.0
such as tables, mainly because they allow greater
stylistic control.
New Strategy: Backed by their immense percentage of users
and their corporate allies (Adobe, Macromedia, Apple)
Netscape forges into new territory; not so many
neet-o kewl tags in 2.0 as in 1.1, instead you have
major shifts like incorporating other file types into
the browser window and turning HTML documents into
FRAMESET documents, which are groups of arranged
HTML documents. Netscape scripting is unclear to me
but it might allow easy control over CGI-like processes.
Client-side imagemaps, and Java too.
Perhaps they, to some extent at least, realize
the "error of their ways" with their earlier, goofier
hacked out tags. They are now trying to push their
latest HTML extensions into the HTML 3.0 standard, and
the reaction they have gotten is not entirely hostile.
(I'm not sure if they ever tried pushing <FONT> in
but I'm pretty sure they would have gotten a hostile
reaction to that).
What's questionable about this strategy is
that Netscape, while it is trying to work with the
standard, is essentially bullying its way in. With
an overwhelming majority of users using Netscape, the
W3C must feel pressure to accept some of Netscape's
demands.
MICROSOFT
Present Strategy: A lot like Netscape's Old Strategy. They
saw Netscape's success and naturally want to get in
on the action. So we have Internet Explorer 2.0
extensions, which are even more cool and nifty
than Netscape 1.1... but have even less to do with
the standards. They're taking Netscape's Old
Strategy and extending it further, which makes sense
to a degree: take what the competition did and improve
on it. The problem is that Netscape was going the
wrong direction in the first place, and has now
sort of "turned around."
Future Strategy: This would mainly involve Blackbird, which
would mean moving away from the Web and HTML altogether.
Blackbird would work over the Internet (not just MSN)
and presumably could have authoring tools and browsers
on multiple platforms. However, it uses its own markup
language and the authoring tools are pretty much
graphical- more like Adobe Pagemaker than currently
writing HTML. Of course, BBML (Blackbird Markup
Language) is Microsoft-controlled while HTML is public.
You tell me the difference.
Now, I might have gotten a lot of things wrong in this little
impromptu history; please tell me if you think my timeline is mixed
up somehow. I've just started working on it, and I need my facts
checked. =)
But basically, you could diagram it like this:
First, the HTML Standard is moving in one direction:
HTML 2.0 ------------------------> HTML 3.0
W3 Consortium
Then, you have Netscape's Extensions:
Style HTML Style Outside
Inside HTML <---------- 2.0 --------------> HTML (Stylesheets)
Netscape W3C
Then, Netscape starts working on its 2.0 version:
Netscape 2.0
/|
/
/
/
/ HTML
Netscape 1.1 <--------- 2.0 ----------> HTML 3.0
(Off on another tangent, but apparently moving back towards
the standard in some respects)
And then Microsoft enters the scene:
Internet <-------- Netscape 1.1 <--------- HTML --------> HTML
Explorer 2.0 3.0
I know this doesn't make 100% sense, especially because
Netscape and IE include some parts of HTML 3.0... it's more of
a strategic/philosophical difference between the various forms
of HTML. Not that the "philosophical" difference doesn't have
large impact on the practical form of the extensions and their use...
Tomas Clark
td...@columbia.edu
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
In article <450v17$a...@deneb.tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>,
Anselm Lingnau <lin...@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
> In article <44uutu$a...@doc.jmu.edu>,
> lee s. bumgarner <LSBU...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > IF Mozilla 2.0 ever comes out, then we have a chance at defeating M$
> > when it comes to groupware.
>
> It seems to me that hoping for Netscape to `defeat' Microsoft is like
> driving the devil away with Beelzebub.
The devil only runs under Windows '95, whereas Beelzebub can (with some
luck) also run under OS/2. And of course there's Beelzebub support for
other platforms.
Galactus
- --
****** To find out more about PGP, send mail with subject HELP PGP to me ******
E-mail: gala...@stack.urc.tue.nl - PGP encrypted please - Mail for info < >
Keyprint: DD FC 6F 05 C5 1C 86 B2 E7 3B 6A BD 06 CF E8 4E - ID 416A1A35 > <
"I'm the best there is at what I do. Though what I do isn't very nice!" ||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAgUBMHWTbDyeOyxBaho1AQHH5QQA1J+Ud85UTc8OGSoJrW2CI4jLsVSribZQ
VJR55jTxiohcvrqtYAJhOSW1NtFph3nc5ELflcrTRQ0cKUe9EPlD312UlS5YJtdQ
PFfmm+wx+Cvycig6ET0u3jI8vCS/V7DsU4rjGByWUV7uI5L3Vd5I/9ejSRPn1tUb
cRAW0cwrtlg=
=QQNF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----