The Mozilla 1.0 Definition

The Evil Beaver writes: "Here we go. Mozillazine is reporting that Brenden Eich, mozilla.org's Technical Bigshot, has released the criteria to what is to be the 1.0 milestone. The 'manifesto' also explains why 1.0 is so important to reach, and why it isn't just another milestone, either. The Mozillazine article is here and the definition document here.

Comments

Its not a game you know..

[onion2k]

Better-than-any-competition standards compliance

There in lies a bit of an issue. The standards aren't done yet. Nor will they be. Standards are an evolving thing. The big issue of the Netscape/IE wars in the late 90s was that both parties tried to predict where the standards were going, and tried to go straight to the final standard without waiting for them to be ratified.

And they both failed.

We had 'non-complient' browsers, different object models, different CSS models, IE and NS specific tags.. it was a right old mess. Trying to be 'most standards complient' implies an attempt to out-do the other browsers, which is precisely where NS particularly, and to a degree IE, fell down. It gave everyone a right old headache.

The problems arise when the web designers find a new feature they happen to like a bit (CSS colour control of scroll bars being a current example), that doesn't work in all browsers, and theres a great big shift toward the browser that does the 'coolest' things.

Yes, be standards complient. Be 100% standards complient hopefully. But just remember that it has nothing to do with how complient the others are.

Re:Its not a game you know..

[onion2k]

Not quite what I meant. HTML 'standard' is set by the W3C, but it evolves. Its currently at 4.3 (I think). So does the Moz team work toward that? After all, by the time they're done it might be at 4.7. This is the trap into which NS and IE fell. They tried to code for a standard that they hoped would be *the* standard by the time they shipped. Both missed the target. But had they written for what was at the time the current standard they'd have been releasing browser that, while stable and complient, would have been miles behind the competition in terms of features. Which is why writing a standards complient browser should be undertaken by someone who isn't trying to make money. Delibrately being behind your competition would be suicidal.

As for the content of web sites, I'm still a 'content is king' web master. As are many of us. But when we probably aren't the web surfing majority. People want flashy gimmicks and toys on sites. And more and more web 'designers' are all too willing to give it to them.

Re:Karma whoring

[collar]

Ummm

"You cant karma whore with a link that's in the article."

Karma Whoring for Dummies (C) the dummies people who are probably mounting a law suit against me already.

Yes.

[dinotrac]

I was so excited when Netscape opened the code.
A long, long, time ago.

And that's the problem. I'm not sure that Mozilla even matters any more, but I think that it does. If nothing else, Microsoft's ham-handedness with product activation, etc. may re-open the window of opportunity.

The 1.0 approach Eich outlines is exactly what the project has needed for the last 18 months, if not two years.

There comes a time when you stop saying "It'll be ready when it's ready" and start asking "How do we make it ready?"

Eich's memo is the answer to that question.
Good luck, guys.
You can do it if you set your mind to it.

Re:Manifesto

[mav[LAG]]

No - it was Wolverhampton Wanders who beat Leicester 3-1 :)

Re:1.0 is symbolic, not artifical

[gorilla]

I used Windows 1.0. It was a nightmare.