[Javascript] Debugger

[John Warner]

Well, you could always set your sites up such as to refuse to load if an
MS product appears with the request.

John Warner
mailto:john at jwarner.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: javascript-bounces at LaTech.edu 
> [mailto:javascript-bounces at LaTech.edu] On Behalf Of Hakan M.
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:24 AM
> To: [JavaScript List]
> Subject: Re: [Javascript] Debugger
> 
> 
> Gee, did I hit a hotspot there?
> 
> > Well, if you have a look at MSXML, you see that it it is 
> actually one
> > of the better XML engines. As for PNG, I have a hard time 
> justifying 
> > that deficiency... 
> 
> 
> You have a "hard time" justifying the lack of PNG-support, 
> eight years 
> after the promise was made to support it? Do you even KNOW what the 
> PNG-format is, and its benefits over existing (GIF) web 
> graphic formats? 
> For someone so furiously defending multinational megacorporations and 
> their lack of interest in the end user developers, you sure 
> seem to have 
> a funny view on the GIF patent issues.
> 
> MSXML is not the browser, my friend. It's a ActiveX-plugin for the 
> browser. The browser doesn't even understand the 
> xhtml-mimetype. Sure, 
> Microsoft have great, huge libraries for anything you want, 
> but that has 
> nothing to do with their browser. I have a really hard time 
> justifying 
> the use of plugins/htc-files to get normal browser behaviour, 
> but maybe 
> that's just me.
> 
> > They don't put an army of developers on it because there is 
> simply no 
> > way they could charge money for the product (not now, after 
> Netscape's 
> > death and all), and without any possibility to bring in money, they 
> > see no reason to further develop it unless they can extend 
> it in ways 
> > that in turn allows them to make money.
> 
> I didn't say they SHOULD put an army of developers on it. I said they 
> HAVE an army of developers. PNG-support, for example, would take one 
> developer a few hours with one of the many free (but stable!) 
> PNG-libraries to implement. They don't need the army of developers to 
> implement one little thing, that would make the browser much more 
> appriciated. If they're not doing this deliberately, it only 
> leaves us 
> with one choice - their developers don't have the skills to do it.
> 
> > If it weren't for Microsoft, you would not at all have the 
> CSS specs 
> > to the level you have it today. They can make a push for a 
> technology, 
> > sometimes. And if you haven't noticed, ie6w is three years 
> old, which 
> > makes XHTML a fringe technology that was only a year old at 
> release time.
> 
> I think what you're saying is "if it weren't for the browser wars and 
> Netscape, Microsoft wouldn't have cared about the end user 
> developers at 
> all". XHTML became a RECOMMENDATION in 2000, the first draft 
> appeared in 
> 1998, if I recall correctly.
> 
> I can counter by saying "If it weren't for Microsoft, we 
> would not have 
> these browser incompatibilities we have today." It makes just 
> as much sense.
> 
> > The moving of the browser development into the OS 
> development group in 
> > Longhorn suggests that they are now considering the browser to be a 
> > core technology of the underlying OS instead of just a separate 
> > application, but perhaps it means that some of the OS development 
> > money goes to the browser development group. That the Longhorn 
> > versions we have seen so far are running ie6.05w instead of ie7w 
> > speaks against that, however. 
> 
> They are NOW considering that? So IE is currently not a core 
> technology 
> of Windows? Ever guessed why the patches for IE are along the 
> lines of 
> "prevent any newbie hacker from any part of the world to take 
> complete 
> control over your computer and wife" instead of "added correct 
> calculation of margins"? Ever guessed why you can't run older 
> versions 
> of IE on new versions of Windows (you can, but not the way it's 
> "supposed" to be run)
> 
> IE is not in control over I/O operations on kernel level, sure, but 
> anything that exposes the operating system to such a massive range of 
> attacks by only being installed is taking enough part in the 
> OS, if you 
> ask me. It's funny that you think this is a GOOD thing.
> 
> > I'm tired of Microsoft bashing when the arguments are 
> 
> With an audience like you, who needs better arguments.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at LaTech.edu
> https://lists.LaTech.edu/mailman/listinfo/javascript
>