Slashdot Mirror
WSP Petitions MS to Make IE Meet W3C Standards
Eric Krock writes "The Web Standards Project has launched a petition drive to pressure Microsoft to fully support HTML 4.0, CSS1, DOM1, and XML in IE." Like it or not, IE is currently the most widely-used WWW browser. Since Microsoft is under a lot of pressure to act (or at least pretend to act) nice nowadays, a large number of polite requests to make their browser products fully support current and future W3C standards just might do some good.
The fact is Netscape needs to release a new browser that is more compliant to standards. I'm not sure I care about Netscape anymore though. I see AOL as being every bit as malevolent as Microsoft, and if people don't want to believe that then why, after aquiring Netscape, didn't AOL deliver it on all those spam CDs it ships out? AOL only bought Netscape to get the brand name (and Netscape's portal page), and is letting the browser die a slow and horrible death. I mean I read somewhere that AOL was having its users use Internet Explorer even after it had aquired Netscape!
I say, there needs to be an open source browser that is not controlled by AOL! I'm not the one to start designing it, surely someone out there is, though!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I assume you're talking about TH, TD, TR and the like. The HTML 4 spec states very clearly that the closing tags for those elements are optional. Netscape is broken, and in many, many places.
It's taken so long because they've rewritten most of it. The fact that it is "unusable and unstable" is normal for a piece of software a couple of months off beta. I've been watching it for a long time - trust me.
Sure Microsoft could make IE read html properly. The real issue is whether or not it could make FrontPage and Word generate proper html. I just got done a stint making pages look the same in all browsers for a company in New Jersey. IE 4 and 5 are quite forgiving about bad html. The reason is that the stuff generated in FrontPage and when you use Save as HTML... in Word 97 is absolute crap. Do you really think that MS wants to make a web browser that doesn't properly display the slop that its web editing tools create? Even their marketing couldn't gloss that over in a nice way. Anyway though, that's just my thoughts on it.
-Mike
We get 10 million hits per week, our ratio of IE to Netscape is about 70/30. Clearly IE has the lead, and it's no surprise -- IE is, IMO, a better browser. WASP can bite my ass. I'm sick of their whining, to be honest.
Mozilla is a pre-beta product, and therefore not under serious consideration as a desktop browser. We're discussing release browsers, which is currently a competition between Opera v3.61, MSIE v5.0, and Netscape v4.61. I personally prefer Opera, then MSIE, and Netscape comes in dead last.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Did you even bother to read the link? It admits that as of right now, IE5 is superior in dealing with standards than Netscape is, but it mentions that the Mozilla development project is dealing with these issues. Honestly, I think this is the difference between MS products and OSS... MS is driven by making money, OSS by making good software. MS would rather release a buggy version of a program rather than work out the kinks, since continuing delays in releasing means lost money. OSS projects don't have that burden. Yes, Mozilla is taking its time releasing V5, but does anyone doubt that the project will release the best product they can? Does the same apply with MS?
yes and no.
Netscape are kind enough to release quite good JavaScript documentation. version 1.3 is out with docs downloadable from http://developer.netscape.com
the problem is that Microsoft's implementation of the "standards" doesn't follow Netscape's version. an example is the use of "JavaScript1.2" in the language attribute to the script element. IE 4 & 5 run scripts using 1.2, but it doesn't support all of 1.2 found in the Netscape docs. result is that you'll get broken scripts if you use it.
but, in the future there should be a standard for scripting too. it's called ECMAScript. combine it with W3C's Document Object Model and you have something better than JavaScript as of today.
Is adapting draft standards that never make it or adopting "standards" which they draft with other companies such as Intel and then continuing to force them down our throats after they've died. (VBScript anyone?) I'm sorry but standards drafted by MS with other companies like Intel, Dell or Compaq aren't standards, they are just MS pressuring those companies into putting their name on it so they can say "look it's a standard."
On the other hand if Netscape would support those proposed standards (in particular I am interested in the SMIL and HTML + TIME standards proposed by MS and Macromedia things would be better over all. Of course the ones listed in the letter are the biggest.
BTW doesn't IE5 support XML fully? I haven't read but I did see it listed as spec. Also when I look at Office 2K output they seem riddled with XML? Can someone confirm if this is an in house version, the standard or a Microsoft "improved" (hah!) version...
..and what is this "mandatory weapon" used for? To make it worthless for those that would supposedly have the greatest benefits of something like HTML. Indeed it is a weapon.
/mill
I suggest you take a look at PostScript. You get all the power you need to specify exactly how things should be rendered (read visualized).
"Waah! I can't define presentation on the pixel level. Update the standard to meet the needs of us professional webdesigners!"
*sigh*
A quote:
buggy.
also buggy.
seriously buggy. they can't even compete with Opera on CSS level 1 compliance. IE5 doesn't even come close. take IE to W3C's CSS test suite and see how it totally fails. sad story.
also buggy.
they're supporting their own standards. if DHTML is considered a "standard" Netscape supports that too since Netscape supports their own standard. it's even well documented.
I'd guess the HTML 4 implementation is buggy too, but I haven't checked.
did you look any numbers up before you posted this?
That different browsers should be allowed to render HTML in different ways is a core concept. If you wanted complete control, you should have used Adobe Acrobat.
Where I work we get quite a bit of web traffic. Quite a bit meaning more than 99% of all the web sites out there and IE doesn't get more usage than Netscape in fact...
F /...
Mozilla/4.* 51%
MSIE 4.* 38.5%
MSIE 3.* 3.5%
Mozilla/3.* 3.5%
And then everything else... I've seen some stats from some other very high traffic sites and they mirror ours as well.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
The frequency of site visitors and they tools they use is partly related to the site content.
The WSP was after Netscape about a year ago for the same thing.
The current Mozilla/ NS 5.0 layout engine, that supports these standards (known as NGlayout) was not originally going to be part of NS 5.0. The WSP lobbyied Netscape to use NGlayout in the 5.0 browser, Netscape change their mind.
Since Mozilla AKA Netscape 5.0, does appear to pass the standards tests and is trying to adhear to standards, there is no need to lobby Netscape at this time, except to maybe make it happen faster.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
As many other posters have pointed out, 100% compliance with W3 is something of a rarity with most popular browsers (which means IE and Netscape).
It seems that in cases where browsers break compliance, it is usually to extend the standard with proprietary tags. IIRC, Netscape started this with such vileness as the BLINK tag (please correct me if I'm wrong here). They took a lot of flak for that one, too.
I've been working quite a bit with XML lately and IE5's support for it. It's not that Microsoft has broken W3 specs -- they've just gone and implemented stuff which is still in the W3 suggestion box. XSL may be an example of this.
I think what MS is trying to do here is make a best guess at what will be recommended by W3. I'm sure they know that the final standard may well invalidate their current implementation. There were, for example, significant changes in XML support between IE4 and IE5. This may be because the XML standards were more solid by the time IE5 was released.
A friend of mine was working on an HTML generator and was in a similar position. It is really hard trying to write a standards-compliant implementation when the standards are not yet finalized. It's also frustrating knowing that today's code will have to be completely changed in 3 months.
I think the real risk is that IE5's implementation may become entrenched as a de facto standard before W3 makes a decision. By going ahead and implementing standards in a browser with majority marketshare, MS may make the W3 standard moot. Pragmatic web designers probably care a lot more about how pages look than whether or not they are compliant. What good are standards if only a handful of browsers follow them, anyway?
I haven't worked on Mozilla any, but I would love for someone on the Moz team to comment on W3 standards and proposals. How much do they change? Have you had to make any major code changes as a result?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Well, you have to realize that standards are typically a moving target in the internet world. I can almost guarantee that by the time (if?) Mozilla ships, it's standard conformance will probably be out of date already. Also, consider that some parts of standards are difficult to implement with legacy code and requires a great deal of cost to change. While that's not an excuse, it certainly makes them reluctant to do so (as it would me!) Microsoft does a good job of W3C conformance from what I understand. Not a GREAT job, but a GOOD job. Mozilla will overtake them and I'm sure MS will come back with a Mozilla killer in standards conformance, but it doesn't happen overnight.
Alot of the posts here seem to indicate that people are suspecting that the WSP has an anti-MS stance. I remember a year ago, before it was decided that Mozilla would be 100% compliant, I was reading messages on the Mozilla site, and the people there seemed to thing that the WSP was anti-Netscape.
A goal of the WSP is to have the two major browsers be compliant. Since Mozilla is already working towards that goal, there's nothing to petition there at this time.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
"...crashes...with spelling mistakes in the HTML."
:)
Yeah! My compiler won't compile my code unless I spell keywords right! It sucks too!
/* This was meant to be taken with humor, not as a flame. */
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Section 1.0
:)
Paragraph a:
When running javascript, all behavior shall be considered undefined.
It is recommended that the implementor:
1) Pop up annoying banner ads which never can be killed.
2) Generate a minimum of three errors per page.
3) Randomly close the browser in the middle of rendering a page.
The coming standard is also expected to recommend forwarding your e-mail address to random spammer groups.
Hope this helps.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This flies in the face of the fact that MSIE 5 fails at more of the CSS1 tests than e.g. Opera does.
It's just a matter of time... before Mozilla is a standard part of most Linux distributions. just my 2 c's, ok, pretty obvious. :)
New things are always on the horizon
Try Opera on WINE? When it's done, Opera for *nix should be a real gem, well worth the (imho) modest cost. // Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
Standards for html, xml et al already exist, and Micromsoft's strategy of claiming to support the standards (and generally speaking, they do, to within the limit of bugs), BUT then adding "extensions" (spit) adn using marketplace clout to push those NON-standard extensions, si what sucks. Why can't they just go through the proper channels liek the rest of us?
What rest of us? Surely you're not speaking of Netscape here, are you? Netscape was the innovator of the WWW-embrace-and-extend, putting HTML extensions willy-nilly into the early versions of the browser. The screaming about this was loud and clear back in 1995. Even today, Netscape's standards compliance is limited at best, dismal at worst. (Dealing with Netscape's very limited Java 1.1 support is a major pain.)
There are no fully compliant browsers. Given the rate that the web is changing, there probably never will be.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Try Opera and Lynx, for two. OK? // Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
Woops, should also read the Subject line when previewing. I *can* spell, very well, fwiw. //Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
Hope I don't make someone violently ill by suggesting the thought, but there probably are some poor souls who think Netscape is a validator! // Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
Unfortunately, the current pace of Mozilla development is so incredibly slow that we'll probably see a few _more_ MSIE releases before the first Mozilla release. I would not be surprised at all to see MS release a Gecko-killer engine in MSIE before Mozilla hits release. In fact, I'll be mildly surprised if the Mozilla project EVER produces a product.
I'm not a fan of MS, but what's left of Netscape is a 747 full of passengers with 4 engines out and a fire in its center fuel tank in a 400 mph nose dive toward the ocean.
People say that Netscape presented the open source community with a gift by opening up Mozilla development. Unfortunately, once the source was released we realized it was no gift at all. Netscape recognized they were going down in flames and that years of poor coding and project management left their code base a total disaster. They didn't give the community a gift, they handed it a flaming turd and begged for help. The help never came because people saw it for what it was.
The people who run the Hitbox counter take all the information they get from people hitting that, calculate it daily, and publish it as is. Very useful service, even if it's only 30,000,000 hits a day.
Try it out, it's http://www.statmarket.com.
What are you talking about? Mozilla redevelopment is less than 1 1/2 years old. Sure, it feels like a long time, but considering that they are redoing almost all of the major components of Netscape, it's not the "incredibly slow" pace that some would like to have you believe. It took Netscape 3 months from announcing the open-sourcing of the code to the actual release... don't you think the redevelopment of the ~60 million lines of code would take a while?
Blank lines between paragraphs.
Useful? Of course.
A standard? Yup.
Use them? Please.
Will in Seattle
MS is screaming loudly to get AOL to adhere to an instant messaging standard, but its own browser doesn't conform to W3C standards.
Hmmm....
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
if only mozilla was a bit more polished, a bit speadier a lot more smaller, and came with the OS :)
none Yet.
AOL/Netscape STILL can't do tables correctly and crashes or dies with a DOS on pages with spelling mistakes in the HTML. That's pitiful. Resizing the browser requires a re-render of the whole page (IE4/5 resizes on the fly). No wonder IE is ahead - it has little to do with unfair market practicies.
For what I've seen, read, and heard from industry professionals (such as members of WC3), Microsoft has done everything possible to follow public WC3 specs.
I would rather see Netscape, Opera, and other browsers catch up than see Microsoft "get it all right and become the defacto browser".
OK,
If MS doesn't support web standards, then we know that their stance on the instant messaging thing is bogus.
I think it would be more scary if they did support the standards.
Microsoft supporting standards. Does. Not. Compute.
(You do trust MS, don't you?)
:-)
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
Wasn't microsoft awarded a patent on CSS? So the bastards patent a standard, then don't follow the standard? How can any logical person not see the hypocracy and pure EVIL that is Microsoft?
This open letter to Microsoft campaign is a good idea to participate in wether you support microsoft or not. One standards complient browser (mozilla) isn't enough - since at least half of the users will use IE us web programmers will still have to write for them too. Any pressure there can be for all browsers to render pages the same is good for everyone.
Didn't they have similar requests with the last series of Netscape versions (ie: 4.x, 4.5x)
The big question is: Does Mozilla already conform to these standards?
I would think that if there was any other popular browser out there that did conform to the standards, then maybe MS would be more willing to conform.
Until that time, I doubt that they will waste much time trying to do anything "correctly."
On a related note: Would they then be forced to change Frontpage to produce compliant pages? That would be nice. Since every Joe Bob idiot is using Frontpage to right "Joe Bob's Home Page". Am I really missing out when I can't read "Joe Bob's Home Page?" Probably not, but many of my co-workers use it too, and though they are smart enough to realize what they are doing, it doesn't stop them.
What are the current statistics on Netscape v. MSIE usage? I just read the other day that MSIE has _75%_ market share, which I find difficult to believe. Who has done studies, and what do they say?? Which studies are to be believed?
Or just flush the damn thing down the toilet. PU
IE 5.0 is at least as standards compliant as any released version of Navigator. Mozilla may (when finished) outdo it in some areas like CSS fidelity, but IE will probably be better than Mozilla in (e.g.) XPath and XSL support.
Name one RELEASED standards compliant browser. Oh, that's right, there are none.
.01 versions) on the marketplace.
It's like the SQL standard, targets to shoot for that aren't necessarily met. I think it's better that the standards are now ahead of the released products rather than a bunch of non-defined things being fought out (and revised in
The only way to get them to follow standards is to crush their monopoly hold on the desktop. I think we are still a few years from that though (but I can dream, can't I?)
This is a good idea. Microsoft is using a standards debate to try and make AOL look bad. So if they are so dead set on standards (HA!), then they should be interested in making their browser support them. Actully I don't see any reason why they shouldn't, i think they didn't support them as part of their war with Netscape. Now since the latest stats show MS with around 75% of the market, they've pretty much won, so why not support standards? if((you want my body) && (you think i'm sexy) cmon baby let me know;
I've recently done extensive cross-browser HTML coding and can tell you for certain: You can't design tables in Netscape properly!! A simple example: Try to create a table with 2 columns; first column of a specific width in pixels, say, 200; second column should take up the rest of the screen. Here's what the code *should* look like, logically:
< TABLE WIDTH="100%" COLS=2>
<
Or, you could make the second column like this:
< TD WIDTH="100%"> The rest<
It would make sense that 100% in this case should mean "the rest of the table", but no, N interprets it as 100% of table's width. That doesn't comply with standards set by W3C on HTML4.0 and possibly even the earlier versions thereof. MSIE5 and Opera on the other hand, do render the second version of the second column (with width set to 100%) as you'd expect.
I think the problem with mozilla is that the opensource-community did not fully accept it. It is a large project with a predefined roadmap and scheduled release dates. That's not what the "average" opensource programmer likes.
In addition to that there is a large and, as I heard, not that well written amount of existing code and 140 professional Netscape programmers continously working on it. There are not so many programmers even able to help in the project.
This has already been tried by game developers in the OpenGL battle. It had no effect. They won't implement standards until Mozilla crushes them (which may not happen until AOL starts providing Netscape instead of IE as their default, since the largest chunk of IE users get it from AOL).
Mozilla is already faster and many times smaller than MSIE... People who choose browsers based on those factors would already choose Moz rather than IE. Inclusion with the OS would help, but it hasn't been enormously helpful for IE--about half of IE users get it from AOL, most of the rest download it. As for polish, that's the big thing--people aren't going to switch to Alpha software. I use it for browsing and testing my site, but I wouldn't trust it for storing my email yet. On the plus side, the milestone plan calls for a beta in about a month and a half, as I recall.
"Standards for html, xml et al already exist, and Micromsoft's strategy of claiming to support the standards (and generally speaking, they do, to within the limit of bugs), BUT then adding "extensions" (spit) adn using marketplace clout to push those NON-standard extensions, si what sucks. Why can't they just go through the proper channels liek the rest of us?" No, they have never provided support for any of those standards. This is by design, not because of bugs and extensions. "Also, WHY is mozilla (which I'm pretty sure is meant to be standards-compliant from day 1) taking so long to get off the ground? It is still *far* from stable, and it's unusable as it is - I know I'm not the best qualified to talk as someone who doesn't code that much, but I don't see why it takes over a year to string together a few parsers and bits of GUI etc." It's quite stable--I've had fewer crashes with it than with Netscape 4.x, and the web browsing part is more usable than any current browser I'm aware of. I'd use only it, were it not for the fact that the mail/news code isn't ready for primetime. And, yes, it takes over a year to design and build something of that size and complexity. Bear in mind that no internet-related software project of that magnitude has ever been attempted before... Not previous versions of Netscape, not IE, not any version of Apache... I'm amazed that things ran so far ahead of schedule that they felt the need to go ahead and include Necko and Gecko in this version.
Check Amaya !
Im not a MS Fan at all...but youre right! I just had this trouble bulding a site recently...everything worked fine and beautiful all the time in IE4. Then I started Netscape and "Boom"...I really liked using Netscape for years, but the latest 4.6 Version is CRAP!...It takes AGES to load and then it crashes even more often than IE. Sorry, but if all the people who are going to watch my websites are using IE I simply dont see the point in stressing myself to get it working in a piece of software that doesnt work. Lets set for a new OS Standard, and then well handle the Browser trouble...;-) Lispy
You do realize that most browsers claim to be "Mozilla 3.0 compatible" in their identification string? Some older site statistiscs tools might add those browsers in the wrong category. Yes, MSIE also mentions Mozilla in its id string.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Obviously you don't create internet solutions for other parties. When you have to conform to a customers idea of a good website, take into consideration their 100 page design manual and do usability testing and user experience testing you have no F*** choice but to use tables. Fortunately Netscape's bugs can be solved, although the customer will pay 30% of the price for the front end to get the site to work on 75% of the browsers and 70% to get it to work on the rest, and usually that is Netscape 'cause they don't care about any other browsers than those two. - Why you shouldn't hire a programmer to produce your website? You don't hire a TV repairman to produce a TV show.
Obviously you don't create internet solutions for other parties. When you have to conform to a customers idea of a good website, take into consideration their 100 page design manual and do usability testing and user experience testing you have no F*** choice but to use tables.
Fortunately Netscape's bugs can be solved, although the customer will pay 30% of the price for the front end to get the site to work on 75% of the browsers and 70% to get it to work on the rest, and usually that is Netscape 'cause they don't care about any other browsers than those two.
- Why you shouldn't hire a programmer to produce your website? You don't hire a TV repairman to produce a TV show.
Seems this whole story is missing a very important piece. Several key members of the Standards Group were keynote speakers at the last Thunderlizard Web Developers Conference I attended in Atlanta. They passed around that very petition to get our signatures on it to submit to Microsoft. What you don't see in this story is that the same letter has been sent to Netscape, and when asked point blank, those same members of the Standards Group stated that Netscape Navigator isn't as compliant as MS. Instead of turning this into yet another "Flame the Borg" discussion, why not blame everyone and scream for compliancy from all sides? From a web developer standpoint, I can't even being to describe the number of times I've made fully compliant HTML pages and had to rewrite them to get them to work in Navigator, when they worked fine in IE. IE may have non-compliancy issues, but at least it can render tables correctly, an almost mandatory weapon in the web developers arsenal today. Don't even get me started on the problems Navigator has with DHTML. Always remember one key issue, who brought you the first non-compliant tags? Netscape. Push for standards, don't point the finger.
Of course we should try to get IE to comply with the standard the same way Communicator and Lynx complies with the standards. Dionysus
that might be more impressive if it had some CONTENT.
dweeb.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Now, I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but if you face the facts, you will see that MS IE is much closer to standards than the current batch of Netscape browsers..
I don't get the political push of this issue, I know M$ is less than angelic, but damn, as a webmistress I find the lack of standards a headache, a backache, and menstrual cramps all in one! >:-P
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Why ask? Just wait till Mozilla comes around. I would sure hate to see Microsoft finally get IE in shape just when a better product is coming along. Let them languish in non-comformity.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
My bad... should have previewed... That was and
BTW: Why is "HTML formatted" the default?
Like it or not, IE is currently the most widely-used WWW browser.
;-) for each of our world-wide branches and according to our logfiles, Mozilla leads by approximately 1.5 (to 2) : 1 ...
Well, no.
I'm working for a Thin Client / Server Computing company. Obviously we should get a lot of IE-using visitors on our websides. However, we are running 15 different server (Apache on Linux boxes
My bad... should have previewed... That was and
The difference is that Netscape's next version will be based on the Mozilla project, which attempts to correctly support everything they support at all... Petitioning would be pointless--they're already doing the right thing.
The WSP /did/ petition Mozilla to meet W3C standards, and Mozilla has taken that path, abandoning the old layout engine.
I almost lost 10 linux boxes at work because of this stupid outlook express 5 that doesnt even send docs in standard html! I has the same problems with reading email from ms hyped relatives. I get a whole bunch of grabled text that says HTML #$%#$%^ W3c HTML.... and all sorts of stuff that outlook express calls w3c standard but are totally not. I use netscape messenger and it couldnt even read it. I live in NY where studio apartments cost 1600 a month so I still live with my parents and they wre furrious and demanded I put outlook express which crahsed windows95 literally 12 times since last year since I used or would corrupt the DUN settings so my parents would have to format there whole entrie drive just to clich the save apssword section of DUN in windows95. WHAT A RIP! AFter all this effort to switch them to NT/netscape they are panicking and saying MIcrosoft onws the net and the world. We are cut off from the world as long as we dont use microsoft products and my boss is the same way! My boss wanted to trash all the linux boxes at work and put NT ones just because he was afraid that the programmers couldnt connect to the net and read email if they didnt use windows. I am PISSED! If microsoft takes over the web, THEN I WILL QUIT COMPUTING FOREVER! IF the openess internet is gone then who knows what will happen next. Ahhhhh. That feels alot better. I just will not stand while some shitty greedy company from Redmond comes in and takes away my RIGHT TO CONNECT TO THE NET without paying REDMOND BIG BUCKS FROM SOMETHING I TAKE FOR grantid for dirt cheap without WINDOWS! I have a huge fear that with everyones attitudes towards just going with ms to connect with the world will change the Internet to an NT only platform in 5 years. This is how ms will try to kill linux. Linux is mostly used as a apache seb server and every version of windows will come with IIS. Microsoft will jsut use statistics showing apache droping fast because every pc sold uses IIS and use those false resutls to scare bussinesses away from apache and unix. I believe IE 5 is the begining of the end of open standards that we took for grantid and html will die a slow death and over time NT will be required to have an intranet or an internet server because widnows will use a proprietary tcp/ip that will be closed and secret and will be incompadible with the current tcp/ip and all the html will be encrypted microsoft code. We need to act now and warn people of not believing zdnet when it says IE supports more open standard then netscape. I used IE 5 myself because Jesse Berst claimed that IE supports more standards. I am in complete shock at the cover-up.
... I started to check that November last year. ...
That ratio never changed much
does it?