[thelist] The future of XML
.jeff
jeff at members.evolt.org
Wed Oct 17 12:33:57 CDT 2001
ppk,
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Peter-Paul Koch
>
> The ditching of the Netscape 4 DOM and proprietary
> tags is indeed the only time a browser vendor has
> blatantly transgressed the Principle.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
nope, read on and you'll find out about another.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> And hasn't Netscape/Mozilla been flamed for this
> decision? Haven't developers moaned and complained?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
yes, of course they have.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From a purely business/PR point of view, was it a good
> idea?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
yes, i think it was. maybe not in the short term. in the long term
though, it's a fantastic idea.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Personally I see the removal of the LAYER as proof of
> my theory. It's one (of the admittedly many) reasons
> NN6 isn't much liked by some developers.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
and here i thought it was buggy support of javascript, slow startup, falling
to its knees when encountering the simplest of dhtml, and the fact that it
was released like a year+ later than promised and even then with known bugs.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> And end users? The few Netscape diehards I talked to
> that tried NN6 aren't very content and prefer to stay
> with NN4 or to migrate to Opera or (on Linux) Konqueror.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
diehards that would prefer nn4 over nn6? of all i've talked to *none* back
up that claim. one thing is true about v4 and v6. no matter how bad v6
might be, it will still be better than v4.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >remember something called <embed>?
>
> I must admit I've never really studied EMBED and
> OBJECT, so I suppose you could be right.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
<embed> is only the most widely used method of, well, embedding things like
flash, movies, and numerous other plug-ins into a webpage.
microsoft took support of the <embed> tag out of ie6 since it wasn't part of
the spec. i'm guessing they feel that most anybody that's authoring for the
web also has a version of their page handy to serve up to those willing to
use the <object> method of embedding content.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Are you sure NN6 doesn't support EMBED?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
nn6 supports <embed>. however, it doesn't support the <object> tag. since
it's part of the html4.01 spec (with the words "must" used when referring to
how user-agents should behave when encountering the <object> tag), i'd say
v6 messed up on this one.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.3
tell me again what the point of partial standards support is?
thanks,
.jeff
http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/
More information about the thelist
mailing list