Re: Introducing NetscapeML
On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Geoffrey Baker wrote:
> The bottom line is *heresy*. No developer cares much about whether a new
> tag is part of the standard; all they want to know is a) is it neat? and
> b) if I write it into my code, how many people are likely to see it?
If developers didn't care about standards, then nobody would be on these
> This may mean we have some very improper tags - and some truly awful ones.
> But if it means that a developer can offer columns, leading control, exact
> placement for graphics, and so forth... developers will use them.
Yes, SOME will use them, and it could very well lead to decreased
readership of the web since you cannot guarauntee that everyone uses the
same browser. If you knew there was a real "awful tag" out there, would
you use it just for the sake of it? Let's not forget how many bad FRAMES
sites came out soon after NS2.0 was available.
Sure, you can download "Netscape Now", but can you guarauntee that
Netscape will continue to allow you to download Netscape for nothing?
What's to stop them from charging sixty dollars a copy?
> I look forward to checking out Netscape's latest... and suggest Microsoft
> that they had better get back to the drawing boards... this is one race
> that will never end.
It probably won't end soon, but I wouldn't place any bets either.
> Geoffrey Baker ---------------------------- CTO
> PUBLISHNET: ---- Integrated Internet Publishing
> www.publishnet.com --------- email@example.com
> > From: Mary Morris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: Introducing NetscapeML
> > Date: Monday, July 01, 1996 12:09 AM
> > > There is indeed copious "market demand" for the simple yet powerful
> > > extensions. We completed them earlier than we expected and are eager
> > > get them into a beta product and try them out. We continue to work on
> > > implementing CSS and other HTML 3.2 features.
> > I've heard this comittment to stylesheets coming from Netscape (the one
> > time, new feature leader) for over a release now. Most of the stylesheet
> > implementations can already be done in NHTML tags. I'm at a loss to
> > understand why some sort of mapping kludge couldn't be made in the code
> > accomodate stylesheets as a remap to NHTML just to keep up with
> > Microsoft.
> > I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that it will take two full
> > versions of Netscape Navigator to implement this (from the first
> > vocal committment). At one time I believed that Netscape was the
> > innovator that could zoom by Mosaic and race out beyond all competition.
> > If this delay in implementation was due to lack of technical resources,
> > it looks like Microsoft will be leading the pack here shortly since
> > as one magazine put, it Microsoft has cornered the market on talent.
> > If on the other hand, this was a strategic delay, it was a bad decision
> > that will cost Netscape credibility in the long run. With 1.98 browsers
> > on the average desktop, they don't have an exclusive mindshare anyway.
> > Netscape has just let the professional's attention wander to something
> > better. Hopefully the professionals will come back when Netscape
> > "catches up". ;^)
> > Don't stress too far on the latest Netscape sin. This isn't a closed
> > market. Netscape's lead is a precarious thing that can be ripped away
> > by bad karma in just a few web generations. They will have their due.
> > Just as Microsoft will for their long delays in Unix compatibility and
> > moderate delays in Mac compatibility. The wheel turns.
> > Mary E. S. Morris
> > http://www.sun.com/smi/ssoftpress/books/Morris2/Morris2.html
----------------------- Christopher P. Josephes ----------------------------
Email | mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Web | http://www.winternet.com/~cpj1/