Just to set the record straight:
First, A standard can't be 'a moving target' (that's the whole idea of
making a standard). It can have different versions, but once HTML 2.0 was
announced, it was 'frozen'. Sure, the work on HTML 3.0 began, but HTML 2.0
is a standard and HTML 3.0 had to be backward compliant.
2. For all you young M$ bashers, please open your history books. It was
Netscape who broke the HTML standard and used a 'de-facto' standard of their
own. Back in those days it was pretty cool for a company to invent standards
by its own, and Netscape was the only real browser on the market
(monopoly?!) so it seemed justified to let them write the standards as they
go and not wait for some slow commitee to decide what the next standard
should be.
Before the 'you must be on M$'s pay roll' flame war starts: If anyone
'remembers differently' (i.e. if you heard true stories about 'HAPROTOCOL
SHEL ZIKNEI MICROSOFT') I still have an HTML book that mentions that some
HTML features are supported only by Netscape, and that they are outside the
HTML standard (most of them were later adopted by W3C).
Of course Microsoft responded by trying to conquer the market using its
proprietory JScript language and special IE4 HTML tags, but that's another
long story...
-------------------------
Aviram Jenik
"Addicted to Chaos"
-------------------------
Today's quote:
There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.
- Dr. Who
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yuval El-Hanany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Why I should not use DHTML ?
> Actually Netscape attempted to follow up the standard, but it was a moving
> target as far as I know. The release of 4.0 was compliant with what they
figured
> was gonna be the standard at the time, under the constraint that they were
there
> before the standard. They plan to support the standard in 5.0, but as we
know
> the 5.0 is not upto schedule... The reason IE is more compliant with the
> standard is that its 5.0 version is a later release...
>
> Cheers,
> Yuval.
>
> Eitan Shefer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Uri Bruck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > DHTML is definitely not an MS standard.
> > > See www.w3.org
> >
> > Yup, afaik, in this case MS is actually more complient with W3 standards
> > then Netscape. And the really bizzar thing is that Mozilla is NOT
backward
> > compatible with Netscrape 4.0, but it is compatible with Exploder.
> >
> > (netscape woke up and saw that not complying with W3 hurt them in the
> > end.)
> >
> >
> >
> > =================================================================
> > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Yuval El-Hanany | Kawasaki GPZ500 '97 |
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Have backpack,
> Home : 972-3-6993301 | Debian Linux Inside | will travel
> Work : 972-9-9586077-227| |
>
>
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
