Re: Warning about Netscape 7 Preview

A friendly response ...

>>I agree that MS is a bit slack in applying the standards, but let's be 
>>honest:  IE4 supported the standards far better than NN4; IE5 supported 
>>the standards better still; IE5.5 better still; and IE6 better still.
>>Only with NN6/Mozilla has Netscape crept up to IE6 ... and arguably 
>>passed it.  IE is like the turtle in Aesop's fable:  slowly, steadily, 
>>running the race, while Netscape has been like the rabbit, resting for 
>>years, then making a frantic dash to catch up.  Yes, Netscape deserves a 
>>lot of credit for what it has (recently) done; but Microsoft deserves 
>>some credit too.
>
>I do remember that Netscape 4 was released about 6 months before IE 4, and 
>I also remember that the HTML 4.0 standards hadn't been finalized at that 
>time, and the CSS standard was still a long ways off. So I can hardly 
>fault NN4 for failing to support "standards" that didn't exist.

You are correct that NN4 was released about 6 months before IE4, and that 
the HTML 4 and CSS standards had not yet been finalized.  So I do not fault 
NN4.0 for failing to support these standards.

I do, however, fault Netscape for not quickly addressing this issue:  the 
typical interval between major software releases is about 18 months, so I 
would have expected Netscape to have corrected this about a year after IE4 
came out.  Instead (as I remember) Netscape issued NN4.5 somewhat later, 
and its only significant concession to meeting standards better was to 
implement CSS1 more fully.  In the meanwhile, Microsoft continued to 
increase its lead in standards support.

>The big problem came with the version 4 browsers. IE and Netscape both 
>were improved vastly over the version 3 browsers, but they diverged so 
>wildly that it made it very difficult to develop pages that made use of 
>the new features while supporting both browsers. Microsoft won the war in 
>features: their version of DHTML was certainly better than Netscape's 
>version (using the layer tag and all). And more of what Microsoft did got 
>included into the standards -- so of course IE better supported the 
>standards! If instead Netscape's approach had been the one that got 
>standardized, we'd be complaining today about how much poorer Microsoft 
>supports the standards than Netscape does. ;-)

Well, in terms of HTML and CSS, IE4 and NN4 did not diverge wildly except 
that IE implemented the standards far more fully.  Of yes, they did each 
have their own special tags and attributes -- BLINK, MARQUEE, MARGINLEFT, 
MARGINWIDTH, etc. -- but such special features did not much impede page 
design.  Of greater import were two other issues:  (a) NN4 violated 
standards by requiring that certain end tags appear in the code even when 
end tags were defined to be optional; and (b) when NN4 found something it 
did not like, valid or not, it tended to go berserk, either failing to 
render the page in a reasonable manner, or crashing, whereas when IE4 found 
something it did not like, it tried to recover gracefully.  These issues 
primarily affected designers who wrote invalid or sloppy code.  (I know 
that many designers think poorly of IE because its approach tended to hide 
coding errors; but I was always annoyed when Netscape crapped out on 
perfectly correct, 100% valid code.)

In terms of DHTML, yes, IE and Netscape DID diverge wildly, largely because 
Netscape failed to support the emerging standard DOM.  You commented that 
"More of what Microsoft did got included into the standards".  I don't know 
the politics of how the W3C standards were established.  I do know that 
both Microsoft and Netscape are both W3C members, so each had an 
opportunity to help define the standards.  Perhaps someone who was 
personally involved in the process of defining the standard DOM could shed 
some light on this matter.

>I don't believe for a minute that Netscape rested for years, and then made 
>a frantic dash to catch up. They were running the whole time; they just 
>changed directions a few times.

My personal perception (please don't flame me!) is that Netscape did not 
rest:  its LAWYERS were indeed running the whole time, and still are; but 
many of its programmers were put out to stud.

>There actually was a Netscape 5 that was pretty far along ... Rather than 
>releasing Mozilla 5, Netscape decided that it would be better to upgrade 
>N4 slightly (to 4.5), and then just scrap the Netscape 4 engine and create 
>a whole new one from scratch -- enter Gecko ... Then of course came the 
>decision to go with open source. I'm sure that that must have slowed 
>things down quite a bit.

Quite a bit:  whatever may be good about open source, one thing that is bad 
is that there is no big, bad company around to make sure that deliverables 
are produced on time.

>And then, of course, AOL took over Netscape, and many of their best people 
>left. Causing more slowdowns, but I still can't call it simply "resting!"

Resting?  No.  The lawyers ran even harder.

>Today I'm using Mozilla 1.0 as my primary browser. It's got it's faults, 
>but it's also got some great features, such as tabbed browsing (which just 
>means that it can open multiple pages within the same window, much like 
>Opera does, only better).

What I admire most about Mozilla 1.0 is its compliance with standards.  I 
trust that updates to Mozilla will further extend its compliance.

>Meanwhile, over at Microsoft, I think IE 4 was mostly new code ... and 
>there's no doubt that the IE 4 engine was light-years better than the 
>Netscape 4 engine. But I guess that's why you called Microsoft the 
>"turtle" -- they're able to refine rather than to redevelop. But it can be 
>difficult to fit standards support into existing code that doesn't support 
>the standards. When you're refining existing code, there's always the 
>"legacy software" problem to deal with.

As a former programmer who was required to use a lot of Microsoft software 
development tools, I can tell you that a bigger problem than Microsoft's 
"legacy software" is its legacy mind-set.  Whenever standards are set -- 
e.g. the C++ standard -- Microsoft is in the forefront, helping to define 
the standards:  but it is bloody slow to fully implement them, always 
arguing that its customers have a overriding need for backwards 
compatibility.  One reason I am enthusiastic about Mozilla is that I expect 
that Microsoft's customers will force it to pay even more attention to 
standards.

>As to whether AOL/Netscape can ever be a contender in the "browser wars" 
>again, who's to say. If AOL actually releases an AOL version that uses it, 
>that'll surely bring a bunch of users on board. But non-AOL Joe User out 
>there is never going to switch to a Netscape/Mozilla browser just because 
>someone says it supports standards better than some other browser, when IE 
>is already right there and ready to use. The only way I could envision it 
>becoming a success is if they think of some sort of "killer app" 
>functionality to add to the thing that everyone would want to have. 
>Supporting existing standards is a wonderful thing, but so is innovation, 
>and that's what seems lacking to me today in both Microsoft and AOL/Netscape.

When AOL switches, we will see at least 10% of users using a Gecko-based 
browser.  This is enough to force Microsoft to continue to improve.

True, Joe User will not switch to a Gecko-based browser just because it 
complies better with standards.  But Joseph I. T. CorporateDrone might:  a 
cross-platform, standards compliant browser engine creates interesting 
opportunities for a company that wants less platform-dependence and greater 
capabilities.  And, after all, Gecko is good for more than just browsers.

[]  Regards, Chuck Upsdell

-
Chuck Upsdell
Email:     cupsdell(at)upsdell.com
Website:   http://www.upsdell.com/

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