[Javascript] Debugger

[John Warner]

You wouldn't have to worry about MS not doing exactly what you want in
their browser. No more rapping MS, you could just ignore them.

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 9:44 AM
> To: [JavaScript List]
> Subject: Re: [Javascript] Debugger
> 
> 
> How would that help me?
> 
> John Warner wrote:
> 
> >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
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Javascript mailing list
> >Javascript at LaTech.edu 
> >https://lists.LaTech.edu/mailman/listinfo/javascript
> >
> >.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Javascript mailing list
> Javascript at LaTech.edu 
> https://lists.LaTech.edu/mailman/listinfo/javascript
>