Re: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire

Simone Demmel (
Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:52:49 +0200 (MET DST)

Message-Id: <>
From: (Simone Demmel)
Subject: Re: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire
To: (Scott E. Preece)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:52:49 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Scott E. Preece" at "Oct 22, 96 09:21:04 am"


Scott E. Preece wrote:
> No, they're telling you what features your browser needs to support to
> handle the page.  You could hack on w3-emacs or on one of the browsers
> that is available in source form or you could beat on your browser
> vendor to add the features or you could find another browser that does
> run on your platform and that has the features.  In fact, though,
> Microsoft has committed to making MSIE available on other platforms, so
> the issue doesn't arise.

Hmmm... if MSIE for Linux is as instable, as Netscape3.* is, that could be
no good idea to port MSIE to linux ... Netscape3.* is nearly unusable here

> Yes, the ability to see a flashy Web page does tell most people that.
> If your new machine sees graphics and animations and sound where your
> old machine saw text, that represents better performance to most
> people.  People's buying decisions are shaped by a huge collection of

The people are asking for features to get flahsy Pages. So it would be
good, to have a standard. 
At the moment, most browser have their own set of features, and I'm still
waiting for that day, where Netscape and Microsoft implement the same
Feature in different ways :(.

Give them a rfc. So everybody can say: this feature has to be like this
and thats it.

PS: yes, I hate these sentences "best viewed with Browser XYZ Version
3.01b12" .. :(
Wenn ich schon klicken muss, dann will ich auch ein Bildchen haben ...
(Gert zum fehlen der Bildchen im Directory-Listing vom FTP-WEB-Server)
                               *** 	  Simone Demmel		Muenchen (Germany)
Fax.: 089/354 59 80
    Member of The HTML Writers Guild (