[thelist] AOL switching to Netscape

[.jeff]

jon,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Jon Hall
>
> I would have guessed this one would have hit the list
> by now, but I was wrong :) Here is the message I posted
> to one of the CF lists...
>
> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/08/1957252
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm going to say the very same thing i said on another cf list with regard to this:

this story has *zero* references backing up its claims and there aren't *any* other news sites carrying similar stories.  the only shred of verifiable truth in the store is the appearance of the gecko engine in some beta compuserve software.  until someone comes out with some verifiable information, it's just a bunch of speculation by an uninformed, yet creative, journalist with no new news to write about, but a deadline to meet to keep his job.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Well it looks all like the speculation has been true.
> This is the first substantial rumor we've seen.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

it's just that though -- speculation.  people have been speculating aol would do something like this since the news of aol buying netscape hit the press.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I've been following the Mozilla development pretty
> closely, and have just started to notice a new keyword
> on some bugs called "AOLTW". As a matter of fact in
> reading some of the bugs listed by following the below
> link, you will see that there is a specific AOLTW
> branch even.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

could very well be referring to the branch of the product being used in the compuserve betas.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I think the most interesting point made in the article
> is that all those companies that use AOL for internet
> access that have a thrown together FrontPage web site
> are going to start seeing their web sites looking real
> ugly in a standard conforming browser, so they are going
> to need them fixed. That's good for us!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

naw, this just takes us all back to 98/99 when we had an almost even split between the browsers.  i agree that moving towards standards is a good thing, but not when the most commonly used don't implement those standards the same.  standards or not, we're back to coding for browsers again.  [puts down rant before it gets out of hand]

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/