New M$HTML Extensions (or "Why Microsoft is Stupid")
Bill Bryan
>On Sun, 1 Oct 1995 17:58:12 GMT, rob...@amanda.dorsai.org (Robert
>O'Connor) wrote:
>
[snip snip]
>How in hell does Internet Explorer lock anyone in? OK, you have to
>use Win95 but there's nothing stopping you using Netscape (nothing,
>that is, apart from the bugs that Netscape have yet to iron out) or
>almost any other browser. You certainly don't have to subscribe to the
>(snigger) Microsoft Network as you imply - I'm sure even Gates
>realises that would have been a major f***-up ;-)
Let's just say it locks you in to Win95. That cuts out a number of
significant platforms that happen to use the Internet. What other
OS will Microsoft release IE on? Not even Win3.11 I would imagine.
Keep in mind that wide ranging use of Win95 will not be in the short future.
Too many large installations are not committing to this release.
>The choice is yours. I sincerely hope that Netscape 2.0 is a viable
>competitor, and I hope other products will come along so that we
>continue to have a choice. But let's not pretend that any one of
>those players wouldn't like to see all the others go down in flames.
Granted
>
>You wanna know what Fuji's corporate motto is? "Kill Kodak".
>Like I said before, that's the ugly face of capitalism and you can't
>blame Uncle Bill just because he happens to be better at it than the
>rest.
>
>Follow ups to comp.infosystems.www.advocacy please.
>
>--
>Steven Smith
>
On different note:
Note also that the new version of Internet Assistant is only available
for Word 95. What about any future updates for Word 6 users?
lee s. bumgarner
> >that's an edge up for Netscape, if they ever get their browser
> >out.
>
> Quite. IE 2.0b is here and now, and it works (at least on PC
> platforms). I'm sick of waiting for Netscrape to clean up the god
> awful mess that was 1.2N's Win95 implementation.
Uh? Are you know or have you ever been a M$ empoloyee? Or are you one of
those new "Microsoft Enhanced" people I've been hearing about? 8-)
> > Netscape may be responsible for
> >some atrocities and monstrosities, but they're still preferable
> >to Microsoft.
>
> Why? Because it's hip to hate MS? It was Netscape, not MS, that
> first decided to throw HTML standards (for the little they're worth
> these days) to the wind and go their own way.
So? We have to deal with it. The 3W org is supporting all their new stuff
anyway. M$ hasn't exactly been as forth coming, to say the least.
> It hurts me, it really does, to advocate a Microsoft product but
> Netscape 1.2N under Win95 is a dog - we all know it - and their
> technical support is non-existent (if I see that automated FAQ
Excuse me, are you a registered user of Mozilla? Did you pay them one goddamn
cent? If you did, then you can bitch, if not, shut up.
> If push comes to shove I know who my money's on. Better the Devil you
> know and all that ;-).
I know both Devils, and Netscape is downright angelic right now.
-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
William Perry
>> >that's an edge up for Netscape, if they ever get their browser
>> >out.
>>
>> Quite. IE 2.0b is here and now, and it works (at least on PC
>> platforms). I'm sick of waiting for Netscrape to clean up the god
>> awful mess that was 1.2N's Win95 implementation.
>Uh? Are you know or have you ever been a M$ empoloyee? Or are you one
>of those new "Microsoft Enhanced" people I've been hearing about? 8-)
How about an 'HTML 3.0 Enhanced' person?
>> >Netscape may be responsible for some atrocities and monstrosities,
>> >but they're still preferable to Microsoft.
>>
>> Why? Because it's hip to hate MS? It was Netscape, not MS, that
>> first decided to throw HTML standards (for the little they're worth
>> these days) to the wind and go their own way.
>So? We have to deal with it. The 3W org is supporting all their new
>stuff anyway. M$ hasn't exactly been as forth coming, to say the
>least.
They have been every bit as forthcoming as netscape about the
extensions to HTML they have made. I've talked to the people
developing IE 2.0 and they seem much more inclined to work with the
HTML community to develop the standards for stylesheets instead of
throwing in crap like <font> again and again. They are putting in all
the netscape `features', and putting in some cool stuff at the same
time since the development time difference tends to 0. :)
[...]
>> If push comes to shove I know who my money's on. Better the Devil you
>> know and all that ;-).
>I know both Devils, and Netscape is downright angelic right now.
ha.
-Bill P.
Ford Prefect
>>stuff anyway. M$ hasn't exactly been as forth coming, to say the least.
> They have been every bit as forthcoming as netscape about the
>extensions to HTML they have made.
And they've been just as forthcoming about how Blackbird ML is supposed to
*replace* HTML, right?
>I've talked to the people developing IE 2.0
And this has left you completely unbiased, right?
>and they seem much more inclined to work with the
>HTML community to develop the standards for stylesheets instead of
>throwing in crap like <font> again and again.
And they're certainly not throwing in crap like <font type="Arial"> again and
again, right?
>They are putting in all the netscape `features',
So they're repeating Netscape 1.1's mistakes, right?
>and putting in some cool stuff at the same
>time since the development time difference tends to 0. :)
So they're making Netscape 1.1's mistakes worse, right? (Try to tell me
<bgsound> won't make <blink> look like a harmless little fuzzball.)
And do you *really* expect us to take someone seriously after they've used
"cool" to describe a WWW system?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Murphy, K.S.C. http://www.solace.mh.se/~starmud/ford.html
mailto:fo...@ee.tulane.edu "I didn't lose my virginity. I eradicated all
#include <std/disclaimer.h> traces of its existence." -Mona Mayfair
William Perry
>wmp...@monolith.spry.com (William Perry) wrote:
>>LSBU...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu (lee s. bumgarner) writes:
>>>The 3W org is supporting all their [Netscape's] new
>>>stuff anyway. M$ hasn't exactly been as forth coming, to say the least.
>>They have been every bit as forthcoming as netscape about the
>>extensions to HTML they have made.
>And they've been just as forthcoming about how Blackbird ML is
>supposed to *replace* HTML, right?
Yup. I've seen a DTD for BBML, _FROM MICROSOFT_ - I have never once
seen a DTD _FROM NETSCAPE_ detailing their extensions. If BBML is
better, then so be it. If HTML 4.5 is better, all the more fun.
>>I've talked to the people developing IE 2.0
>And this has left you completely unbiased, right?
Pretty much. I've been developing web browsers since early 1993.
I've seen all the little new whizbang, ill thought out features go by.
Little things like <img> - from the same people who later brought you
<blink> and <frame>. Bleah.
It might shock you to learn that I also talk to the people who write
netscape, and Arena, and violaWWW.
>>and they seem much more inclined to work with the HTML community to
>>develop the standards for stylesheets instead of throwing in crap
>>like <font> again and again.
>And they're certainly not throwing in crap like <font type="Arial">
>again and again, right?
Didn't say they were perfect.
>>They are putting in all the netscape `features',
>So they're repeating Netscape 1.1's mistakes, right?
No, just like most other web browser authors, I imagine they get
sick and !#%!ing tired of people reporting `bugs' like 'this page
looks "right" in netscape... fix it... whine whine'
Can we say 'market pressures'? I'm personally trying to pressure
everyone I know on the IE team to do stylesheets. People should do
the same instead of bitching about it.
>>and putting in some cool stuff at the same time since the
>>development time difference tends to 0. :)
>So they're making Netscape 1.1's mistakes worse, right? (Try to tell
>me <bgsound> won't make <blink> look like a harmless little
>fuzzball.)
<sarcasm>
Blame the content providers.
</sarcasm>
Sorry, but that is what netscape says over and over again. I'm not
saying that waht microsoft is doing is right or wrong. I think the
font stuff they put in is bunk, but they are under the same pressures
as most big companies putting out web browsers - differentiate.
Netscape has been doing the exact same thing for almost a year now,
and people say 'wow cool, gimme a wetnap'. When Microsoft does the
same thing, people call them the great satan. They should at least
detest both of them, or neither. :)
>And do you *really* expect us to take someone seriously after they've
>used "cool" to describe a WWW system?
Who is `someone' in this context? I don't think I've ever used the
word `cool' to describe a web site. There are very few that I would
consider worth visiting on a regular basis, and _none_ of them use
netscape or IE enhancements. Although one or two are using the
`Emacs-w3 enhanced' icon. Heheheheehe.
I was using the word "cool" to describe an ability to specify the
exact font an author wants, which is incredibly useful. The fact that
this belongs in a separate stylesheet is extremely obvious to me.
Which is why I have had stylsheets implemented for 6 months or so.
That MS has done it with <font style=arial> instead of:
HTML { font-family = arial }
is unfortunate, but understandable.
-Bill P.
Chris Wilson
>And they've been just as forthcoming about how Blackbird ML is
>supposed to *replace* HTML, right?
Replace? Well, in the same manner Java is supposed to "replace" HTML - by
providing content-author-designed functionality on the Web. I don't think
either one is going to actually *replace* HTML, though... certainly not
until easy-to-use WYSIWYG authoring tools are *the* way to produce Web
content. Most people would prefer to hand-code HTML rather than hand-code
Java (or any other programming language) - at this point, at least.
wmp...@monolith.spry.com (William Perry) wrote:
>Ford Prefect <fo...@ee.tulane.edu> wrote:
>>So they're repeating Netscape 1.1's mistakes, right?
>
> No, just like most other web browser authors, I imagine they get
>sick and !#%!ing tired of people reporting `bugs' like 'this page
>looks "right" in netscape... fix it... whine whine'
*BING*! How many times have Web browser authors heard that line, right
Bill?
> Can we say 'market pressures'? I'm personally trying to pressure
>everyone I know on the IE team to do stylesheets. People should do
>the same instead of bitching about it.
Please! My personal vision for the Web ever since I left NCSA for
commercialdom has continued to be an open and standardized one. I have
not been part of the Internet Explorer team here, but I am about to become
one, and I plan on driving standardization and "the right way" (e.g.,
stylesheets instead of <font>) pretty hard within that group.
>>>and putting in some cool stuff at the same time since the
>>>development time difference tends to 0. :)
>
>>So they're making Netscape 1.1's mistakes worse, right? (Try to tell
>>me <bgsound> won't make <blink> look like a harmless little
>>fuzzball.)
Hmm. I'd say they're vaguely equivalent, except it seems much more likely
that you'll turn off sounds (Options page, Appearance tab, uncheck "Play
sounds and music") than the possibility of Netscape making a checkbox for
"Use <BLINK>" (maybe there is one - It was not apparent in 1.2). At any
rate, we were getting requests for the <BGSOUND> functionality WHEN I WAS
AT NCSA - over a year and a half ago.
> Netscape has been doing the exact same thing for almost a year now,
>and people say 'wow cool, gimme a wetnap'. When Microsoft does the
>same thing, people call them the great satan. They should at least
>detest both of them, or neither. :)
Again, Bill hits the nail on the head. Do you really think Netscape does
not have wet dreams about having a stranglehold on the WWW market, in the
same way some people think Microsoft has a stranglehold on most of the
rest of the computer software market? It is their goal. It is apparent
in everything they have done. It was especially apparent in their disdain
of the standards committees, until they had established a foothold in the
market with Netscape 1.0.
I don't want that to happen. I don't think it would be ultimately good if
Microsoft *controls* the market either. I believe the users and the
content providers should control the market, _with_due_diligence_paid_ to
the standards organizations. I do think Microsoft can do a great job of
providing awesome software in this market. I think that Microsoft is
getting better and better at producing great software that will be the
software users will want to buy because it is the *best*, not because of
Microsoft's past marketing practices, which I will not delve into here
except to say that I do not always agree with them personally.
Suffice to say, I believe Microsoft will be at LEAST as large a player in
the Web market as Netscape, based on the merits of their software. That's
why I'm here.
>That MS has done it with <font style=arial> instead of:
>
> HTML { font-family = arial }
>
> is unfortunate, but understandable.
True. My personal feeling is that the IE team went for the quick win, the
same as Netscape did with <font size+=1>, etc. That does not exclude us
doing it the right way, either. Any company that wants to compete with
Netscape's crushing grip on the Web market right now needs to come up with
quick win features too. Netscape has set the standard for commercial Web
companies - keep quiet and proprietary, and then open everything up to
"standards" after you've released. I certainly want to keep MS as far
away from that as possible. At the same time, we recognize our
competition, and we are forced to follow their lead when they play dirty.
I think now that Microsoft has a firm foot in the door, the innovations
coming from us will be much more open and standards-happy.
-Chris Wilson
PS Read the disclaimer - I AM NOT an official spokesperson for Microsoft.
Nothing I say should be taken as the "official views" of Microsoft Corp.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Ford Prefect
>Ford Prefect <fo...@ee.tulane.edu> writes:
>>And they've been just as forthcoming about how Blackbird ML is
>>supposed to *replace* HTML, right?
>Replace? Well, in the same manner Java is supposed to "replace" HTML - by
>providing content-author-designed functionality on the Web. I don't think
>either one is going to actually *replace* HTML, though... certainly not
>until easy-to-use WYSIWYG authoring tools are *the* way to produce Web
>content. Most people would prefer to hand-code HTML rather than hand-code
>Java (or any other programming language) - at this point, at least.
I'm sure you're right. The major complaint I've heard about BML was that its
claim to "integrate with HTML" amounted to its launching a separate HTML
browser when you tried to go to a page written in HTML. Which would suck, but
the Blackbird page makes it sound like that's not the case after all.
>wmp...@monolith.spry.com (William Perry) wrote:
>>Ford Prefect <fo...@ee.tulane.edu> wrote:
>>>So they're repeating Netscape 1.1's mistakes, right?
>> No, just like most other web browser authors, I imagine they get
>>sick and !#%!ing tired of people reporting `bugs' like 'this page
>>looks "right" in netscape... fix it... whine whine'
>*BING*! How many times have Web browser authors heard that line, right Bill?
Netscape does *offer* (for instance) <center> instead of the preferable
<p align=center>, but it doesn't *force* you to use it (it recognizes both); it
merely leaves the trap open. IE does too, right?
>> Can we say 'market pressures'? I'm personally trying to pressure
>>everyone I know on the IE team to do stylesheets. People should do
>>the same instead of bitching about it.
>Please! My personal vision for the Web ever since I left NCSA for
>commercialdom has continued to be an open and standardized one. I have
>not been part of the Internet Explorer team here, but I am about to become
>one, and I plan on driving standardization and "the right way" (e.g.,
>stylesheets instead of <font>) pretty hard within that group.
Sounds like N2.0 avoiding N1.1's mistakes.
>>>So they're making Netscape 1.1's mistakes worse, right? (Try to tell me
>>><bgsound> won't make <blink> look like a harmless little fuzzball.)
>Hmm. I'd say they're vaguely equivalent, except it seems much more likely
>that you'll turn off sounds (Options page, Appearance tab, uncheck "Play
>sounds and music") than the possibility of Netscape making a checkbox for
>"Use <BLINK>" (maybe there is one - It was not apparent in 1.2). At any
>rate, we were getting requests for the <BGSOUND> functionality WHEN I WAS
>AT NCSA - over a year and a half ago.
Which doesn't necessarily make it a Good Thing. Both <blink> and <bgsound>
have good uses but are open to abuse, and IMHO the latter case will tend to
be worse - the same people who used huge inline images will now use huge
background sounds, and anyone who doesn't know how to turn sound off has to
wait forever or manually abort it. The worst you can do with <blink> is put
it around the whole page, which you only do if you're malicious or astoundingly
foolish.
>>That MS has done it with <font style=arial> instead of:
>> HTML { font-family = arial }
>> is unfortunate, but understandable.
Why's it understandable? And where would this { font-family = arial } go? I
haven't seen that construct before.
>True. My personal feeling is that the IE team went for the quick win, the
>same as Netscape did with <font size+=1>, etc. That does not exclude us
>doing it the right way, either. Any company that wants to compete with
Sounds like N2.0 avoiding N1.1's mistakes.
>Netscape's crushing grip on the Web market right now needs to come up with
>quick win features too. Netscape has set the standard for commercial Web
>companies - keep quiet and proprietary, and then open everything up to
>"standards" after you've released. I certainly want to keep MS as far
Well, maybe. See above discussion re <center> and its ilk.
>away from that as possible. At the same time, we recognize our
>competition, and we are forced to follow their lead when they play dirty.
Are you really, now.
>I think now that Microsoft has a firm foot in the door, the innovations
>coming from us will be much more open and standards-happy.
Sounds like N2.0 avoiding N1.1's mistakes.
William Perry
>cwi...@microsoft.com (Chris Wilson) wrote:
>>Ford Prefect <fo...@ee.tulane.edu> writes:
[...]
>>> Can we say 'market pressures'? I'm personally trying to pressure
>>>everyone I know on the IE team to do stylesheets. People should do
>>>the same instead of bitching about it.
>
>>Please! My personal vision for the Web ever since I left NCSA for
>>commercialdom has continued to be an open and standardized one. I
>>have not been part of the Internet Explorer team here, but I am
>>about to become one, and I plan on driving standardization and "the
>>right way" (e.g., stylesheets instead of <font>) pretty hard within
>>that group.
>Sounds like N2.0 avoiding N1.1's mistakes.
You mean like using a weird <frameset> tag in HTML, instead of a
separate stylesheet/layout mechanism, and actually _USING_ content
negotiation to specify whether you can handle it or not? And adding
<font color=xxxxx>? I don't see Netscape
>>>>So they're making Netscape 1.1's mistakes worse, right? (Try to tell me
>>>><bgsound> won't make <blink> look like a harmless little fuzzball.)
>>Hmm. I'd say they're vaguely equivalent, except it seems much more
>>likely that you'll turn off sounds (Options page, Appearance tab,
>>uncheck "Play sounds and music") than the possibility of Netscape
>>making a checkbox for "Use <BLINK>" (maybe there is one - It was not
>>apparent in 1.2). At any rate, we were getting requests for the
>><BGSOUND> functionality WHEN I WAS AT NCSA - over a year and a half
>>ago.
>Which doesn't necessarily make it a Good Thing. Both <blink> and
><bgsound> have good uses but are open to abuse, and IMHO the latter
>case will tend to be worse - the same people who used huge inline
>images will now use huge background sounds, and anyone who doesn't
>know how to turn sound off has to wait forever or manually abort it.
>The worst you can do with <blink> is put it around the whole page,
>which you only do if you're malicious or astoundingly foolish.
Agreed it is not necessarily a good thing. Which is why it should
be an option (which it is according to chris, I haven't checked it out
personally). But the possibility for good use (like a doom page with
the doom music in the background - hahah just kidding)
>>>That MS has done it with <font style=arial> instead of:
>>> HTML { font-family = arial }
>>> is unfortunate, but understandable.
>Why's it understandable? And where would this { font-family = arial
>} go? I haven't seen that construct before.
The font-family stuff is from the CSS v4 stylesheet specification.
It is understandable because they were adding in support for netscapes
<font> tag anyway, and the time to throw in <font family=xxx> is much
much much lower than throwing in support for even a simple stylesheet
mechanism (I know, I've done both in my browser).
>>True. My personal feeling is that the IE team went for the quick
>>win, the same as Netscape did with <font size+=1>, etc. That does
>>not exclude us doing it the right way, either. Any company that
>>wants to compete with
>Sounds like N2.0 avoiding N1.1's mistakes.
I don't personally see this. But other people's mileage may vary.
>>Netscape's crushing grip on the Web market right now needs to come up with
>>quick win features too. Netscape has set the standard for commercial Web
>>companies - keep quiet and proprietary, and then open everything up to
>>"standards" after you've released. I certainly want to keep MS as far
>Well, maybe. See above discussion re <center> and its ilk.
>>away from that as possible. At the same time, we recognize our
>>competition, and we are forced to follow their lead when they play dirty.
>Are you really, now.
It is a sad fact, but generally, yes you are.
>>I think now that Microsoft has a firm foot in the door, the innovations
>>coming from us will be much more open and standards-happy.
>Sounds like N2.0 avoiding N1.1's mistakes.
How do you see N2.0 avoiding the old mistakes? They have added in
nothing from the HTML 3.0 spec that was not already specified before
they did 1.0, much less 1.1, or 1.2, or 1.[12]2. This is probably
just something people need to agree to disagree on. Sort of like how
some people do not see that emacs is incredibly superior to VI.
-Bill P.
Gaven Miller
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is it just me, or did someone else read that as "New M$ Hate mail Extensions"?
William Perry
> Before this goes any further, I'll note that if I agree with something, I
> tend to delete it from the quoted text, rather than quote it for the sole
> purpose of replying "I agree". So I'm not disagreeing with you quite as
> much as it may look. That aside, let's continue:
Noted. I'll follow suit.
> wmp...@monolith.spry.com (William Perry) wrote:
> >Ford Prefect <fo...@ee.tulane.edu> writes:
> >>>development time difference tends to 0. :)
> >>So they're making Netscape 1.1's mistakes worse, right? (Try to tell
> >>me <bgsound> won't make <blink> look like a harmless little fuzzball.)
> ><sarcasm> Blame the content providers. </sarcasm>
>
> Well, <bgsound> does make it easy for them to be annoying (except that you
> can turn it off even more easily). <blink> and <center> are annoying
> primarily on an aesthetic basis; it takes bad luck or eeeeeeeevil intentions
> for them to seriously mess up the look 'n feel of a page.
I tend to look at it as how badly do the extensions !@%! up a non-IE
browser. When authors rely on <center> or <blink> solely, without
using things like <h1> or <em> along with them, they can completely
ruin how a page looks in a non-netscape browser. I've received almost
as many bug reports for `this heading shows up in netscape but not in
emacs-w3' as I did for the valid quote checking in Emacs-w3 before I
implemented the <center> and <font> tags. BGSOUND at least won't show
up at all.
> >>And do you *really* expect us to take someone seriously after they've
> >>used "cool" to describe a WWW system?
> > Who is `someone' in this context? I don't think I've ever used the
> >word `cool' to describe a web site. There are very few that I would
>
> Oh, I didn't mean to restrict "system" to just mean "site". You
> said something about the "cool" new features that IE offered.
'k. I would take 'system' to mean the markup langauage as a whole,
not a specific feature. Linguistic misfire.
> > I was using the word "cool" to describe an ability to specify the
> >exact font an author wants, which is incredibly useful. The fact that
>
> I can't think of a topic offhand for which exact font selection
> would be "incredibly useful", above and beyond <pre> and <h2> and
> such. Can you give me an example?
For an internal web site distributing official company information
where the style guides of said company must be adhered to strictly.
Plus for those people really concerned with presentation (who are the
people writing really netscape or IE specific pages), its very
important. When netscape 0.9x (was it that far back?) was released,
and <font> was introduced, I was disgusted, but immediately wondered
why they hadn't gone the next step like the IE guys did, and allow you
to specify the exact font.
But doing it in <font> is needlessly limiting. The CSS v4
specification (at http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Style/css/draft.html) will
let you do so much with fonts, its great. And pretty easy to
implement the basics. The more advanced stuff assumes certain things
about your internal representation of a parsed document (like actually
keeping some of the structure around, and being able to backtrack)
though.
-Bill P.
Herbert Rosmanith
: Netscape has been doing the exact same thing for almost a year now,
: and people say 'wow cool, gimme a wetnap'. When Microsoft does the
: same thing, people call them the great satan. They should at least
: detest both of them, or neither. :)
m$, as before (remember "Stacker" and DoubelSpace), uses ideas
other companies invented. i call this "idea theft", and not only
do i, so does the law: remember also that "Stacker" won ? that m$
was not allowed to use MacIntosh OS design ?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
he...@wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at | Fighting for peace is like
Rosm...@Edvz.uni-linz.ac.at | fucking for virginity
Ford Prefect
>> can turn it off even more easily). <blink> and <center> are annoying
>> primarily on an aesthetic basis; it takes bad luck or eeeeeeeevil intentions
>> for them to seriously mess up the look 'n feel of a page.
> I tend to look at it as how badly do the extensions !@%! up a non-IE
>browser. When authors rely on <center> or <blink> solely, without
>using things like <h1> or <em> along with them, they can completely
>ruin how a page looks in a non-netscape browser.
Well, yes. I'd forgotten about the people who aren't merely nonproficient at
HTML, but actually severely uninformed.
Gromit
>I can't think of a topic offhand for which exact font selection would be
>"incredibly useful", above and beyond <pre> and <h2> and such. Can you
>give me an example?
Well, suppose you are trying to make a business by writing http
clients/servers... Exact font selection gives you a G-WIZ advantage to sell to
'feature' wowed managers, who give you money, which, noone will contest, is
incredibly useful.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
**WAKE UP folks! Boycott Net$cape and Micro$oft greed driven proprietary
"enhancements"! BOYCOTT micro$oft network "msn.com", micro$soft money and other
attempts by the micro$oft monopoly to control electronic banking and commerce!**
Jason Costomiris
: How do you see N2.0 avoiding the old mistakes? They have added in
: nothing from the HTML 3.0 spec that was not already specified before
: they did 1.0, much less 1.1, or 1.2, or 1.[12]2. This is probably
: just something people need to agree to disagree on.
Hate to burst your bubble here, but Nutscape 2.0 does implement a bit
more of the HTML 3.0 spec. They implement things like:
<DIV>
<BIG>
<SMALL>
They're all in the HTML 3.0 spec. Don't believe it? Look at
http://www.w3.org and see for yourself. I wish they would implement
<fig>!
: Sort of like how
: some people do not see that emacs is incredibly superior to VI.
Recalling that editors are largely a religious issue... When _I_ edit
text, I use a _text editor_ (vi). I don't want an ENORMOUS editor that
doubles as a mail program, newsreader, web browser, and a zillion other
things. If I want mail, I'll use pine or elm, thanks. If I want news,
I'll use tin. If I want to surf, I'll use Mosaic or Nutscape.
--
Jason Costomiris | Finger for PGP 2.6.2 Public Key
jco...@netaxs.com | "There is a fine line between idiocy
My employers like me, but not enough | and genius. We aim to erase that line"
to let me speak for them. | --Unknown