Slashdot Mirror

Compliments for standards compliance in IE5 for Macintosh can be found in a press release from the WebStandards project.
One sad, thing however, is that I've heard that recently, the Mac IE team has been moved over to the WebTV division. I hope this won't negatively impact the next version of IE for Macintosh.

Compliments for standards compliance in IE5 for Macintosh can be found in a press release from the WebStandards project.
One sad, thing however, is that I've heard that recently, the Mac IE team has been moved over to the WebTV division. I hope this won't negatively impact the next version of IE for Macintosh.

As noted in the XMLHack piece, conformance is typically monitored by external organizations like The Web Standards Project, or XML.COM.

MS has been extremely effective with their logo certification program. My prior employer would jump through any hoop, do anything at all without regard to process, resources, etc. in order to get the MS logo compliance. I almost wish that IETF or W3C would try such heavy handed stuff.

I'd like to know what you think of Zeldman's work outside his "personal site" realm. Please take a look at alistapart and see if you have the same complaints. Also, what do you think of webstandards.org?
I'm not flaming you, but your comment recieved a lot of attention even though you apparently didn't see much of his work. I'd like to know if you have a problem with all of it or just Zeldman.com

Jeff --

I know you're part of the whole Web Standards Project. A key plank in the platform seems to be fighting the placement of propietary interests above baseline support for standards, as seen in the recent IE 5.5 for Win-32 brouhaha. To me it seems that one could change a few words, and phrase the following question:

What is your stance on the apparent shift of the web from an open community to one ruled by territorialism and propetism, i.e. web and software patents?

Just curious Jeff....

----

I imagine that following the post by FascDot Killed My Pr, a lot of the posts will have a similar structure. So I'm defining a macro to avoid repetition:

Using this definition, here is my question:
WHY does www.webstandards.org open links in a new browser window, when this behaviour is inconsistent with the rest of the Web, annoying, and strongly discouraged by the W3C?

Seriously, if TrustE is not going to be biting the hands that feed them, then why are we listening to them? Because they spent much of their money building "brand recognition" on the web (making them the "most visible symbol on the internet"?)

What we need is a real consumer-privacy watchdog. Not one that says "we make sure that if companies violate you privacy, they tell you first", but one that conducts active research -- if I can catch violations of a privacy statement by using a Hotmail account created solely for online registrations, so can an advocacy group.

I'm talking about the online-privacy equivalent of the Web Standards Project. They publish a credo of "thou shalt nots" and rate everything an "internet business" does.

For example:

If they have a website that requires registration, what do they do with that information?

If they produce "internet-enabled" products, what exactly does the product transmit over the network? How is that information used? (Yet another good reason reverse engineering needs to remain legal, and not just for "interoperability".)

In the case of GUIDs, do their products create any kind of identifier that can trace a created file or document back to the originating product?

If any kind of authentication is used to allow users access to the product (like a personal-finances program), how easy is it to circumvent the authentication? Is the information accessible without authentication?

This group should also put some work into informing people as to what their rights should be online, and helping them fight for it. ("If you use RealNetworks products, write to them at this address and tell them how you feel about the GUID issue"...)

Jay (=
(The question is, who pays the bills for a group like this?)

Firstly, something I have to get out of my system ...

FIRST POST!

Yes, it's my first post to Slashdot. I've been here about 18 months now, and never felt compelled to contribute before. But this discussion just makes me sick. I am in a maze of whiny little Slashdotters, all alike -- complaining about Communicator, doomsaying about Mozilla, and no-one doing anything.

So let's cover the whingers' main points.

Navigator/Communicator 4.x is buggy.

Sure it is. Basically, Communicator 4.x is built on the same basic architecture as Navigator 1.0, and has grown like topsy. It's a mess, and it's hard to debug. Which is why, earlier this year, Mozilla.org ditched the old codebase and rewrote nearly all of Mozilla from scratch.

But in the meantime, I'd much rather have a browser with several performance bugs and fewer security bugs, than the other way around.

Communicator hasn't improved since version 4.5.

Yes, that's mostly true (unless you count `Shop' buttons and the like as improvements), except that a number of bugs have been fixed since 4.5. Basically, Netscape are keeping Communicator 4.x ticking over while they work flat out on Mozilla, because Mozilla is where the future is.

Balls. Mozilla 5.0 will far outclass IE5's broken support for HTML 4.0, CSS1, CSS2, and XML. And Mozilla optimized builds are already faster than IE5. To quote Rick Gessner, Netscape's Director of Engineering:

About a year ago, I was asked to present the very early demo on Gecko. As a follow up, we went back to debate with Microsoft on the state of the browser war. The MS guy was nice enough, and credible, too. He seems like he cares about what he was doing ...

But our own Eric Krock was on a mission. Even though he had larengitis (sp), he managed to show a side by side demo of us vs IE, and we killed 'em.

We smoked their demo on size, speed, and mostly on standards compliance. It was really funny to watch.

But even more exciting than Mozilla's standards-compliance and performance, is the fact that it offers the building blocks for constructing any client-side Internet application you like -- using its cross-platform front end of XUL (the XML User Interface Language) and JavaScript. So not only can you change the look and feel of Mozilla, but you can alter the entire user interface, or even create your own app using the Mozilla layout engine and networking code.

Mozilla is doomed.

So if CNet and ZDNet say something often enough, it becomes true? That's sick. Sure, JWZ left. Good! Sure, Mozilla.org had to scrap a lot of their old code. Great! It's an open source project, you can't kill it, you can only delay it ...

And this is the bit which really annoys me. Everyone is standing around moping about how IE is taking over the world, and thinking that talking about it (in usual Slashdot fashion) is enough.

It's not.

Join the Mozilla effort. Do it now. It doesn't matter if you don't know C++. It doesn't matter if you're stuck on Windows. It doesn't matter if you only have two hours a week to spare. Just join in. Download binaries. Report bugs. Suggest enhancements.

I'd like to think that the Slashdot readership were actually interested in the future of both Linux and the Internet. I don't want Linux to be a second-class end-user operating system, simply because it doesn't have the world standard Web browser on it. And I don't want Microsoft, or any company for that matter, to control the Internet.

Do you?

[ Give up ] [ Fight back ]

-- mpt

Why wanting a browser ported that even in its latest incarnation still doesn't support all standards? See this Press Release for more...

"We'd hoped that the latest round of browsers would take the
opportunity to get things right. Internet Explorer 5.0 is an
opportunity lost," Olsen said. "We'd like to know: when will
Internet Explorer have full support for any one Web standard?"

Argathin

ACTION:

MS Product and Corporate Questions: Waggener Edstrom at (503) 245-0905
MS email contact info is at http://register.microsoft.com/regwiz/regwiz.asp

The USPTO phone number is 800.786.9199 (800.PTO.9199). They say they are "not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence". What a shock.

US Asst. Attorney General for Antitrust: Joel Klein.
* "If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov". Seems like this qualifies, eh?
* Other DOJ email contact info is at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm
* DOJ Antitrust phone contact info: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/phoneworks.htm

Vice President Al Gore (cheerleader for hi-tech and, um, less distracted than others at the White House)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_Vice_P resident.html
Or email direct at vice.president@whitehouse.gov

US Senate Commerce, Science, And Transportation Committee
John McCain, chairman: John_McCain@McCain.senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/
508 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510-6125
(202) 224-5115
http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail. cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=419 -- lists all members, with links to their homepages.

The House Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Commerce@mail.house.gov

House Committee on Science
2320 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6371

Bogus Patent petition:
http://ethepeople.com/affiliates/national/fullview .cfm?ETPID=0&PETID=98938 &ETPDIR=affiliates/national

INFO:

W3C copyright terms: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice

W3C software license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-softw are.html

"Microsoft Awarded Style Sheet Patent"
Reprinted from The Bulletin: Seybold News & Views on Electronic Publishing, Vol. 4, No. 19, February 4, 1999
http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index .html
This article apparently broke the story.

Wired News: "MS Wins Patent for Web Standard" by Chris Oakes
2:05 p.m. 4.Feb.99.PST
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17 741.html

WEB STANDARDS PROJECT CALLS FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER PATENT GIVES MICROSOFT CONTROL OVER TWO KEY WEB STANDARDS
(press release: Feb. 4, 1999)
http://www.webstandards.org/patent.txt
(Also discussed at http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index 2.html)

At this writing (11:30pm PST Feb. 5), nothing on this story has appeared in/on:
* C|Net
* ZD Net and all related publications/sites
* CNN
* NY Times, et al.
* Seattle Times (www.seattletimes.com)