Slashdot Mirror
Netscape 6 Fails To Support Web Standards
Steve Chapel writes: "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide author David Flanagan has posted
an article
and a petition requesting that the final release of the
Netscape 6 browser
based on the
Mozilla open-source project
be delayed until it fixes the
problems
with support for current Web standards." It seems clear to me that Netscape cares a lot more about shopping tabs and similar deadwood - things that bring immediate profit to the Netscape Corporation but absolutely no value to the user - than they do about putting out a decent browser. Personally, I'd recommend beta-testing IE 6, since IE not only has won the browser wars, it's clearly a better browser - and will remain so.
Don't be a moron. Proxiweb can't make any use of that positioning because THERE ISN'T ENOUGH SPACE ON PALM SCREEN. Just to be more or less readable text must be re-formatted, and actually developers of that browser went a long way to make it usable with all kinds of tables, images, etc. that in most of cases wouldn't be readable at all if the screen was just a scrollable window into "perfectly correctly" rendered page -- I will get RSI just from trying to scroll through that monstrosity.
So, developers of the browser are right, and pixel-positioning/overCSS'ing/flash/javascript based design is wrong -- not because of standards but because browser developers made a genuine and mostly successful effort to make their product usable. In the original spirit of the HTML ideas they tried to accomodate whatever will be possible to accomodate into the form that is most useful for the user. And both "standardizators" and stupid "web designers" did their parts in a job that bastardized the web, and made it impossible to accomplish browser's task on their pages, no matter how hard its developers would try to do that. Unless a browser runs on high-resolution screen that I can't put into my pocket, and uses countless megabytes of memory to do the rendering and interpreting.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
michael: Are you kidding? You want to throw away the only browser working towards 100% standards compliance, in favor of something that supports 0% standards? This doesn't make any sense. I hate to ruin your party but Mozilla will be 100% standards compliant, but it ain't easy, and it's not going to happen overnight. In the mean time, Netscape needs to release a new browser before they lose all of their Market Share.
Joseph Elwell.
To see the leader in internet standards in action, load http://www.microsoft.com from any non-microsoft plantform. You get: JavaScript Error: http://www.microsoft.com/, line 28: loadPage is not defined.
---- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(
I've submitted my share of bugs for Mozilla (along with test cases to demonstrate them) - and some of them _WON'T_ be fixed 'due to compatibility' reasons. "It's always been done that way," they say. "Use CSS to fix that," they say. "Other browsers do it that way," they say. .swf spec is even 'open' (unfortunately the .fla spec is not). Combine that with Flash Generator, and voila - see ya, HTML, wouldn't wanna be ya.
See, here's the deal - they SAY they're going to make it 'standards compliant', yet that isn't always the case, depending on which person gets your bug report. If their 'mind'set is as quoted above, then you can forget standards compliance and commonsense layout. Unfortunate, to say the least. The big reason why I want to move to full Flash display ASAP. HTML will be quite useful and stable as a Flash-delivery framework. *not kidding* Check out the features of Flash 5 - it's gettin' scary. Detailed scripting, form fields (as of v4), etc. The
On the flip side - I'd STILL rather use a slightly-less compliant browser (Nav 6) than use a browser imbedded into Windows. The reason? Quite simple (for those simpletons out there) - when Navigator (any version) crashes - it takes itself out. When IE crashes (even as late as v5.5), it usually takes out the whole OS (Win 98SE or Win2K - happens with both).
The 'standards compliance' (such as it is) in Navigator 6 will be plenty good enough for me as long as it doesn't take out the OS with it when it crashes (don't be a fool and think "it won't crash"). My real concern isn't with whether it'll crash a lot or be 100% standards compliant (it'll crash some, and it won't be 100% compliant), but how buggy the implementation of JavaScript, CSS, and the DOM will be. Too many bugs in these (especially CSS) are what have prevented wide-spread implementation thus far (that and users who don't understand the concept of 'upgrade').
Okay, enough ranting. I gotta stop making websites for a living. *sigh*
I guess I shouldn't have expected better from Slashdot. The Slashdot community seems to have given up on free software in favour of lame games and anime, but to advocate a browser that is only available on two platforms as an alternative to a browser that is available on just about every UNIX, MacOS, Win32 and even OpenVMS is just plain ridiculous. IE will never compete with Mozilla because of that.
I would personally recommend Windows and probably MacOS users use IE - at least until there is a Netscape 6, but to see it as an alternative for the Slashdot readership makes me almost laugh.
Of course the correct response to this is: Its Free Software - don't whine - patch! If Netscape management is more worried about shipping than fixing some bugs then fork for god's sake! I would rather them ship a 90% compliant browser than ship nothing and leave us with NS4 on UNIX.
What I would really like to see is Slashdot readers and authors committing some patches instead of fencesitting and whining. You can't consider yourselves to be part of the free software community if you don't commit code (or docs or translations or support or any of the other worthwhile things you could be doing).
Full Disclosure: I've used nightly Mozilla builds regularly since M11, and now use Mozilla nightlies more often than any other browser.
This particular argument, frankly, is crap. Have a look at tinderbox or the weekly status reports - and count how many of the fixes are specifically for the composer system.
There is a big, big difference between an HTML editor, and supporting form controls. This was a big mistake that Mozilla made, and they have been trying to get out of recently by decoupling the forms controls from the composer (I believe the code-name for this project is "Ender Lite"). The main "crossover" for the composer is in the mail/news system, and the creation of HTML "enhanced" emails.
Composer is the one part of Mozilla that I don't think should be there. Then again, I'm one of the increasingly small number of people who think that HTML in mail and news is obscene.
Charles Miller
(Whose last five Mozilla posts were rabidly positive, but you have to draw the line somewhere.)
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
Galeon (galeon.sourceforge.net) based on the mozilla browser so it renders nicely, missing some important features at the moment (cookies, ssl), but under heavy development
/usr/lib/mozilla/psm ; chmod go+w components
For the record, Galeon does support SSL.
1) Install PSM in Mozilla as root
2) cd
And it should then automatically work in Galeon.
(something we should probably add to the FAQ)
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
Actually it is a very good argument. If we were discussing cars, for example, and we lived in separate countries, would it make sense for me to tout a car that was only available in mine?
If something is not available to you, it is irrelevant, regardless of how good it may be.
If you choose your OS based on browser availability, then, no, it is no longer an irrelevant point. But choosing an OS based solely on the availability of one application seems to me to be a little silly.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Incidentally, I use w3m when I need a text-mode browser. Supports frames and tables and has colour support too. See it on freshmeat.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for 6, and probably anything that will come in the future. Netscape has joined the dark side, and I get chills any time I try to use it. It's not just the crash factor (they are, after all, still working on it), the bells and whistles, the terrible UI, or the lack of conformity to standards; The problem is also that IE now functions so cleanly and so smoothly that Netscape is hardly a contender anymore.
I hate to say it folks, but the battle is drawing to a finish, and Microsoft is emerging as the victor. Netscape made some serious blunders, and while they may scoop in a few dollars before they go, they will likely disappear within the next few years. The software company I work for has stopped bothering to support Netscape because it is so divergent, and also because within the next year or so it will lose market share until it finds itself in the company of Opera and Lynx.
Got Rhinos?
Personally, I'd recommend beta-testing IE 6, since IE not only has won the browser wars, it's clearly a better browser - and will remain so.
Did you actually say that a Microsoft product is somehow better than an Open Source product? on Slashdot? Are you crazy?
--
You're so right, and NOBODY can EVER challenge this Microsoft product, AGAIN!!! Once Microsoft winds a product arena, it stays WON, FOREVER!!!
Competitors need NEVER apply!
Pardon me, but it's late, and I'm sick to death of this industry attitude that when someone wins a marketplace battle against Microsoft it's just until the next rev, but when Microsoft wins marketplace battles, it's forever.
This is one plain and simple reason they need to go down the tubes.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I personally like IE better, I am not sure why. A lot of my friends ask me why i like it better and I never have a good answer.
It's because of the subliminal messages, of course!
This sig is umop apisdn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for Mozilla, but at this point it really looks hopeless.
"In a number of cases, Mozilla engineers have fixed standards-compliance bugs and have had their patches to the source code reviewed twice by senior engineers. Even when the patches are extraordinarily simple ones"
Sounds like typical management to me. The idea is usualy to attach yourself to anything that may wind up being a good idea. Leaching credit for good work is SOP in every corporation I have seen. Do we realy think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs wrote every line of code themselves? yet who gets the credit? By exhaustively reviewing the fixes, it allows them to take some credit for the fixes themselves, or, if they actualy find a flaw, all that much better. it's a win win......
Dirty Pirate Hooker
naww..I think that IE has not beaten Netscape by any means. In fact, at our school, we only have netscape, and that is the same at some colleges i have visited. Netscape might not be as popular, but it hasn't lost the browser war.
I personally like IE better, I am not sure why. A lot of my friends ask me why i like it better and I never have a good answer. Now I might, but I still wouldn't underestimate Netscape, Mozilla etc....I don't see Microsoft having an opensource browser, do you?
The anti-salmon
- Faster
- Less crashprone
- More compliant when it comes to international text
- More compliant when the JavaScript is written correctly
Also, Microsoft has a tendency to try things and, if they don't work, ditch them. Remember the Pointcast-like IE 4.0 channels? You have to dig to find them now, if at all, in the newest version of IE.
If people would start using IE, and stop making comments about IE 4.0 and IE 3.0 (which was out years ago -- I don't make comments about how bad Netscape 3.0 was) perhaps they will see it's not such a bad browser after all.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
IE has about 80% market share... I'd call that a big win [not saying that's good, just that it is]. Now Netscape has been peddling dog feces as consumer product for quite a while now, and Mozilla is still not ready for prime time, nor is it really visible in the Windows arena [hint to open source folks: the key to victory is not the OS. get people using open source tools on windows, showing them the value of open source, THEN move them to a different OS, touting how all their lovely open source tools will port so nicely]. I wish it were otherwise, but so long as I have to use Windows [and I have some reasons folks] I'll use IE. Once I'm through with Windows, well, I hope SOMEONE has their act together by then.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
It's a horrible article because it's got it's head up it's ass. If you're going to write an article about standards compliance, the natural thing to do would be to do a comparison. Obviously we can't link to Microsoft's internal bug repository, but makes a straw man argument that somehow, there are no bugs in IE which cause under certain rare circumstances, for IE to violate official web standards.
It's funny to see that some people are willing to pull a stunt like this, in an attempt to get the bugs they care about fixed. Anybody who has been following Mozilla development (like for instance me, this being posted from a version of Mozilla built from CVS earlier today) is aware that some known bugs will be left in NS6 and fixed in NS6.01 or whatever simply because right now they need to ship product. If there's a bug which causes seven pages on the Internet to display slightly incorrectly, they really don't give a shit, and that's GOOD.
No I'm not smoking crack, it really is a good thing. What good will a perfect, bug-free browser do if it's delivered at the same time as emacs 27 and Linux 2.6? If we get a damned good browser out there, it forces a larger portion of the web to make sure they work with IE, and Mozilla. If nothing is shipped, then IE becomes the standard, and there's no chance of preserving a standards based web.
I have nothing against IE, I think it's a great browser, and IE 5 for Mac is, in my opinion, the best browser I've used. The idea that we should abandon mozilla, stop reporting bugs, and hope that IE6 saves the world is even more ignorant than the slashdroids who think that Linux is the only decent operating system in the world.
Congratulations Michael, you and the trolls were having a short dick contest, and it looks like you won.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Yes, you read that correctly. Netscape won the browser war. Netscape's goal was to turn the web into a platform. They succeeded in that goal. We now live in a world where many applications are web-based instead of Windows-based. Microsoft didn't want that. Netscape did. Netscape won.
It was a Pyhrric victory, of course, since Netscape's market share got decimated by Microsoft. But they succeeded in turning the web into a platform.
By the way, I don't fault AOL/Netscape in putting money-making devices in the browser. They have to make money somehow, and they don't have OS or office suite cash cows to support the browser as a loss leader, so they have to recognize some revenue somehow. At least they've continued to support the open source Mozilla project, allowing you to re-build it differently if you so choose. AOL has been more than gracious in keeping the dream of a non-MSproprietary Web alive; they do not deserve our scorn.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I'm know I'll get mod'd down for saying this, but...
Whoever posted this must have been having and extremely bad day. Let's review the post (posters notes, not quotations from the article):
Hrm... perhaps someone ("michael") was:
Personally I think that slashdot is having serious quality problems. Crap is getting posted all too often, and good stuff is getting refused. Articles like this don't even deserve the bytes they are printed on (err, what a sec here...
I remember a slashdot that was run by a single person, and that person ran a quality site. Back then the quality of the site was directly tied to his reputation... now however, things are seeming different.
-Chris
Set Konqy to masquerade as IE from the Control Center (UserAgent). www.zdnet.com is not shown correctly because buggy scripts in the page identify us as Netscape. Also complain to their webmaster.
IE isn't availible on all platforms so how do you expect me to change to it?
-Compenguin
A Slashdot story advocating the use of a Microsoft product??? Maybe one of those dooms-day asteroids is going to hit us after all. Surely this must be one of the seven signs???
Full HTML4.0 compliance
Full ECMAscript 262 support (Javascript)
Java applets
Full CSS1 and partial CSS2 compliance
Full SSL support (with openSSL)
This is definitely the browser to use if you're on a unix system. It's great for those that want an open source browser that is lightweight (no email/news clients, as there are other KDE apps for that).
-Justin
"Clearly, IE is a better browser" /.- think before you post. I still like you guys, and you'll last a lot longer if you don't alienate your readership by allowing trolls to pose as employees.
Eh. Clearly, you haven't been using Mozilla regularly. It isn't yet as good as (say) IE 5.5 for Mac, but it is vastly better than Netscape 4.x and getting better all the time.
"and will stay that way."
How exactly do you justify that? Oh, wait, I forgot- this is slashdot, not actual journalism.
Seriously, if this article were a comment, it would get modded into the ground as flamebait, because Michael is making claims that are not only tenously grounded in reality, but which he completely fails to back up at all. Furthermore, it completely ignores most of us who are not willing to run products that aren't free, Windows first and foremost among them.
Please, please
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I've been reading Slashdot for a long, long time and I resent your claim that supporting IE is "ridiculous".
Historically, Microsoft made some pretty crappy software. Things are changing, however, and they don't deserve the flaming that they get on this site. Yes, they're closed-source. Hell, RedHat makes closed-source software. **MOST** companies make closed-source software. But in terms of stability and quality, Win2k and IE 5.01 are awesome products.
Before you get your panties in a knot, let me tell you that I ran Linux from early 1994 until 1998, when I switched to FreeBSD. My job title is "Senior UNIX Administrator" and I've spent more than my share of time at a bash prompt. I've played with nearly every OS out there, both open and closed-source. I stand by my opinion that IE and Win2k are excellent products.
And for your statement that "IE will never compete with Mozilla", well, you're just plain wrong. IE's user base is growing daily. IE came farther along in a matter of a year than Mozilla has done in its lifetime. Like it or not, most of the world uses (and will continue to use) Microsoft Windows.
On top of all that's been said; about OS embedding to gain performance and entangle IE in the OS; about the IE lack of standards compliance; the customizability of Mozilla and the like; I'd like to add THIS.
It's exactly the sort of blind regurgitation of opinions, as skillfully demonstrated by the troll message I'm responding to, that has gotten us where we are now.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Not all of us run Windows, so we can't beta-test IE 6 unless MS suddenly decides to start supporting platforms outside of Windows and Macintosh. In any event, Mozilla nightlies are just as good by now; that the Mozilla crew has developed a cross-platform, standards-compliant, feature-filled, modern web browser in about 2.5 years from the ground up is just amazing. That Netscape/AOL is pissing in it doesn't surprise me, but then, I use Mozilla nightlies, not NS6.
Mozilla != Netscape, but Netscape is being built on Mozilla.
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Of course the correct response to this is: Its Free Software - don't whine - patch! If Netscape management is more worried about shipping than fixing some bugs then fork for god's sake! I would rather them ship a 90% compliant browser than ship nothing and leave us with NS4 on UNIX.
I can't believe you got modded up as insightful. The article gives props to Mozilla which is the Open Source project not Netscape. The problem is that Netscape is ignoring all the fruits of the Open Source nature of Mozilla by refusing patches and the like to standards compliance problems.
I agree that for a site that pushes Open Source micheal should have pushed Mozilla instead of IE but it seems you are under the mistaken assumption that Mozilla and Netscape 6 are the same project which is untrue.
Mozilla is NOT Netscape
Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
the article is about how Netscape's people aren't implementing Mozilla's patches.
That's the story in a nutshell. Don't hold your breath to apt-get MSIE 6.0... Mozilla is working on these problems, and they're not worried about release dates
Again from the article: There's a link about signing the petition, and some very egregious examples of Netscape (despite railings by Mozilla) not implementing pre-existing fixes.
There's still hope... for those of us who wait for Mozilla.
__
alt.geek
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
What is this guy complaining about? Netscape has decided to put a feature freeze on Netscape v6.0, and is being very selective about what makes it into the codebase. Finally, Netscape wants to realease a browser, instead of releasing press releases.
Unfortunately, this is going to mean that some documented "misbehaviours" will not be fixed for Netscape 6. They'll be fixed in Mozilla, and fixed in later releases of Netscape, but they won't be fixed in this one. Oh well - sometimes, that happens. If it this matters to you, use Mozilla instead of Netscape. Or, use Internet Explorer.
But Netscape has to realease something. That fetid pile of refuse they've been limping along on for the last few years is simply horrible -- it doesn't even pretend to support any of standards proposed by w3 in the last four years. The CSS1 support is a cruel, hideous joke. The CSS positional content crap makes my hair turn grey. The DOM is entirely non-standard, and provides almost no scriptable elements -- essentially, Netscape v4 allows you to swap images, hide and show layers, and manipulate form elements. Thats it. Its hardly more than Netscape 2 provided. Some incredible effects have been created using these paltry tools, but I shudder to think how much hair someone lost trying to create them. Internet Explorer is much, much easier to develop for -- it supports the w3 proposed standards much, much better than Netscape v4 ever did. In some cases, it supports them as well as Netscape v6 plans to.
Unfortunately, there is only one widely used standards compliant browser -- Internet Explorer. More and more websites will abandon Netscape in the coming years. I am certain of this. If a credible standards compliant competitor to IE emerges, then I believe most developers will develop to those specifications. Unfortanately, if no competitor implementing CSS or the DOM emerges, then developers will continue developing to IE's implementation of those specifications, along with all the other non-stadard extensions IE introduces.
Frankly, the abandonment of Netscape is happening today, and the problem is going to accelerate. Unless some browser gets a toe hold in now, soon the web will be full of IE specific pages -- pages which follow no published standard, but instead are written to whatever implementation those guys at Redmond decides to give us. We need a second standards compliant browser available for most platforms, so that people have a reason to use the standards. A standard is only useful in the face of competition.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
You see, by releasing it as a 6.0 (not beta, but just as a version), people will download it, and not download anything for a while (people don't like downloading new stuff -- it tends to be slower and clunkier). As a result, developers will have to start (learning) how to develop for 6.0 -- programming for its quirks ON TOP of what they already have to do right now (we have to separate IE/NS, then by major version number, and if we're doing really funky stuff, by minor version number).
That's a WHOLE LOT OF CRAP. The article makes some good points.
I guess it comes down to: is it better for NS to release a buggy browser that people are pissed off about? Or is it better that they not release another (yet again) for a while and risk losing even MORE market share.
--
Some of [the standards] are too vague on what the different elements should look like...
If you're talking about HTML (as opposed to CSS), that's deliberate! The Web was not designed to be WYSIWYG. HTML is for content markup, not visual markup. If you need absolute control over the look of a page (why?), use Flash or some other plug-in.
Nobody won the browser wars, damnit! We all lost! The browser wars set us back 10 years, to the time before the web. The Web was invented so that anybody could view anything on anything, the browser wars destroyed that. Instead, we got two sucky browsers that look the same, feel the same, renders pages almost identical. One is perhaps more bloated than the other, but they both suck badly. Instead, we should have had a great diversity in browsers, each with different features, leaving the layout of the page and the control of the page largely in the hands of the users. Very little of the web's potential is realized, all it does is put food on the table for a few overpaid graphics designers, while web pages are still linear or hierarchal. Arrrrggggh!
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I tell ya.. Slashdot says something Pro-Microsoft, the Internet will crash tomorrow at election day, and the US Government gives it's employees a raise.. Oh, did I mention that pigs have flown?
Now all we need is for the Transmeta IPO
Information is the catalyst for revolution