Re: y2k in netscape 4.08

Rich,

I agree that the y2k issue in discussion here make Microsoft look either
blindingly stupid or deliberately disruptive.

However, would you agree that sometimes it's beneficial not to wait for the
standards committee to make up its mind?  Microsoft has brought a lot of
really useful stuff to market ahead of endorsement by the w3c.  Standards
are good, but sometimes certain companies that can't seem to keep pace cry
"standards abuse" every time someone with a better product leaves them
choking on dust.

Kevin Haidl
Act of Mind Communications
Web Assessment, Site Design, Site Production and Site Promotion
kevinh(at)actofmind.com     http://www.actofmind.com     (604) 734-5098


----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Bowen <rbowen(at)rcbowen.com>
Sent: January 5, 2000 11:03 AM

> I made this point in my personal email to Peter a few minutes ago, but
> it is worth making again.
>
> This is not about Microsoft.
>
> I am a firm believe in standards. Standards are what make the Internet
> work. When someone chooses to disregard, or change, those standards,
> without the consensus of the community, they shoot themselves in the
> foot, and injure the community as well. If they want to change the
> standard, there is a well-understood process in place for requesting a
> change, and altering the standard. I have no problem with the change,
> although step-wise functions (functions that have different definitions
> for different ranges of arguments) are unweildy. What I have a problem
> with is them making the change without the agreement of the community.
> Functions that work differently on different browsers are the bane of
> the JavaScript community, and make it almost impossible for people to
> develop real applications of any size. When we work with JavaScript, 90%
> of our billable time is spent working out Netscape/IE compatability
> issues. That's wasteful and frustrating.
>
> If you think that this is just about how one function has been
> implemented, then perhaps it is indeed a moot point. However, it's about
> much more than that. It's about how one company has decided to change a
> language definition so that people have to use their browser.
>
> It's not about Microsoft. I spoke out just as strongly against Netscape
> when they were doing the same thing to HTML back in 1994-1996. That was
> even more irritating, because it was more fundamental to the way that
> the WWW works, and almost split the web into two non-compatible parts.
> Microsoft was very instrumental, at that time, in gaining cooperation
> between the two "sides" of the issue, and reuniting HTML in HTML 4.0.
>
> Yes, I have spent an undue amount of time bashing Microsoft. Hopefully
> that does not ipso facto negate my arguments. They have done some good
> things, notably in usability, which other parts of the computer world
> have completely neglected, until very recently. But the utter disregard
> for standards, while at the same time claiming to be a strong supporter
> of standards, is disconcerting.
>
> Rich

HWG: hwg-languages mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA