[thelist] Stop Word, Excel, PDF loading into browser

Isotope2k@aol.com wrote:

> There is nothing inherently unsecure about using the same interface
> to view web documents and the local filesystem.  The IE integration
> was a rushed product, IMO, and thus suffered from a LOT of bugs.

Using the same *interface* inherently, you're correct. Internet Explorer
is more than an interface however, its a mini-os of its own with many
many features and 'innovations' that, yes I concede, in a perfect world
would make the Internet an easier place for the average internet user.

The only way a network/local filesystem viewer could work IMO, is by
being just that, a viewer. Not a JVM or ActiveScripting(umm..dunno if
thats what encompases everything i'm talking about) application. Once
you add in that level of functionality, there start to be problems. The
only application I could think of that could do this successfully would
be one where you used Explorer or whatever to browse the local FS, but
had to load a completely new application(or widget) to browse network
FS's - not just a different set of security rules or zones, but an
entirly different app that would be very limited in how the network FS
could interact with the local one.

I'll agree though that IE was a rushed product, and always will be a
buggy and insecure one.

> A 404 error is just that- an error.  Usable applications aren't supposed
> to spit raw error messages to the user.  Errors are trapped and handled.

Agreed. However, the difference between any other application, and the
Web is the sheer number of hosts out there. An application, if run from
a central point, can have very verbose and well defined error messages.
Sadly, the Internet doesn't allow for this...

> to the client as well.  By the standards, it is really up to the browser
> what to do with the error.  IE just tries to help the user by using their own
> document.  

Where is this specified? According to RFC2616 (http1.1) "the server
should include an entity containing the explanation of the error
situation."

For 5xx errors(server errors), it is the responsibility of the user
agent(browser in our case) to display any included entity/info to the
user.

MS follows the 5xx error as standards specify, but also decided to take
the 4xx as well. Why? Sure many 404's aren't the clearest, but is 

"The page cannot be found. The page you are looking for might have been
removed, had its named changed, or is temporarily unavailable." 

and a link to MSN search(I'll refrain from stating the obvious there ;)
) all that much better than a 'standard' 404 error? Who knows, thats
personal opinion.

My point here is that MS wanted a way to smooth over the ugly and
potentially confusing Internet errors that the majority of its users
were being confused by/scared of/worried they just broke the World Wide
America Online Internet.

Mowing the lawn just so the sheep can graze is a terrible thing to do,
and inches towards an Orwellian world - but I'm starting to digress here
:)

> We're all pissed that Microsoft was able to leverage their OS monopoly
> to win the browser wars, but the truth is they have the best browser
> implementation available.  If Netscape could've been able to integrate
> and maintain a revenue stream with their browser, they most
> assuredly would have done so.

Heh.. we'll save this for another time :)
 
> Not trying to start a war, just trying to open some eyes.  BTW, I'm not
> a drone.  I actively participate in an open source project and my
> favourite editor used to be vi.

haha.. meet me on the alt.vi.blows.emacs.rules newsgroup ;)

Seriously though Christopher, I'm glad we can explain our differing
points of view in a mature, and flame-lacking nature - Sadly, I think
many people fail to express their opinions/beliefs about many things
because they may be afraid of the controversy/flame wars it may start..
Thanks for sharing your opinion :)

.djc.