The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.advocacy, comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc
From: m...@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
Date: 1995/10/16
Subject: Re: Netscape and others Vs Microsoft
In <45svnf$...@shellx.best.com>, ftmex...@shellx.best.com (Frank McNeil) wrote:
> : Unfortunately, you're probably right. The results of this can be I'm talking about markets, not just browsers. > : predicted by looking at other markets where this has happened. For > : instance, the Unix market. Unix has lost the desktop, and is in the > : process of losing the server market to Windows NT. I expect the same > : thing is going to happen to the browser market - someone is going to > : come from somewhere else and blow them away. > I don't understand that comment, since there is no Unix-only commercial > browser that is as fast and as reliable as Netscape. And on my Unix boxes, pretty near *any* browsers is faster than > People in this newsgroup have mentioned that the browser for OS2 processes I believe they also mentioned this is no longer the case. > <center> but doesn't process <P align="center">. > Oh and then there's Yes, the NetScape table implemenation has a bug with TABLES. It also > Netscape that doesn't process align="center" in some elements that <center> > can work on. <center> is more of a browser standard something than > align="center" is. doesn't center the tables by default. Try finding a commercial-quality tables implementation with this problem. > : By your standards, that's not true. After all, there are essentially Mapping newline in attributes to nothing instead of space; not > : no browsers that parse HTML 2.0 correctly. NetScape prior to 2.0 has > : some really nasty fundamental flaws. With 2.0b1, they're down to some > : minor irratations. > There are many parts of HTML 2.0 which browsers can deal with or almost > deal with correctly; hence I consider HTML 2.0 a standard that browser > companies have accepted for the most part. This is good. > ?-"Minor irratiation" handling comments that start with a ">" character, like so: <-->>>>> THIS IS A COMMENT <<<<<<--> > Netscape can't do miracles. No-one has created a fast commercial grade So? Those writing slow or low-grade browsers (like NetScape) could at > browser yet for the ms-windows 3.1+ operating system. least try to follow the standards. > Microsoft didn't disappoint me. They haven't dissapointed me since 1975 or so. Everything from them I've used has had the quality level I expected (i.e. - any self-respecting undergrad wouldn't put his name on it). > I assume you are talking about other products, such as operating systems. Nope. OS's, MSMail, compilers, assemblers, MS-Word, and probably a few others. Not wanting to use their OS products does limit exposure to the rest of their software, which is another good reason for not doing so. > You may be right; I get the Idea you've written a few programs. However, NetScape has *publicly* stated that they will adhere to SGML with > I haven't written many programs so I just think Netscape doesn't need > to complicate their job by adhering to SGML for their browser. their browser. With 2.0, they are actually paying more than lip service to this statement - processing most SGML comments properly, handling quoted attributes properly, etc. Of course, that the evidence indicates they don't have anyone working > They Such *won't* be HTML, by definition. Of course, HTML is not > and others may come up with better solutions to problems anyway, such > as they way those chose not to use the SGML commenting method. trademarked, so you could call any random assemlage of garbage HTML. NetScape would probably try to dispay it, even. If you deliver a document to someone as text/html that doesn't conform to the spec, you are lieing to people. > : Whereas NHTML is only an implementation. Actually, that's a source of frustration. As someone working on a > Ha, Ha, Ha :) Good one, Mike! browser, I only have two possible answers to the question "this doesn't work like it does in NetScape": 1) My browser follows the spec, your document doesn't, or 2) I'll fix it. Since there isn't even anything as firm as a draft proposed standard for any netscape extensions, doing #1 with a netscape extension is hard. I personally refuse to do experiment with NetScape to figure out what thing should do for #2. A very similar situation applies when writing *any* application that deals with HTML. Nothing prevents NetScape from writing up a spec for NHTML and > : For people who care about interoperability NetScape could have made it more likely that others would adher to the > I care, but as I see it there are few formal ties between browser > companies. Hence, lets hope Netscape, Spyglass and others[1] adhere to > the specs that the HTML-WG group is working on. Note they aren't > working on HTML 3.0, which is only a spec. specs if they had followed the existing drafts and existing practices instead of using proprietary tags. <mike You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||