Re: an official W3C browser test

Inanis Brooke wrote:

>The bottom line: if browser vendors don't have any truely plausible
>motivation to conform, they probably won't... I'd like to see them

	The best motivation would be a competing browser that does conform
to the standards.  To repeat my self again from earlier in this thread,
almost anyone could build a browser.  Lots of people have, so all that we
need to do is take someone's code and change it around to support new
features.  Unfortunatly, we will have to rely on Netscape's implimitation
of ECMASrcipt since it's the only one that's open source.  Building a
complient browser can be done, it's just a bit time consuming.

>With regards to buggy browser code, it depends on how you see the scenario.
>The big two want their browsers to be compatible with as much HTML code as
>possible. Again, because the browser industry is so competitive, all it
>takes is one diligent programmer to "raise the bar" for everyone else!

	Apple's one time CyberDog was nearly fully complient with HTML 3.2
(at least from what I could tell).  If it wern't for Apple's recent ties to
certain Microsoft products, like Explorer, they could probably be lobbied
to update CyberDog to a regular application with support for HTML 4.0,
CSS2, XML, ECMAScript, and whatever else they felt should be implimented.
Just prof that complient browsers can be produced by large companies.

>(marketing-hype-type-stuff: "One Web, One Standard!") :)

	Don't let the corporate world learn of this slogan, should it
become a reality.  They'll stop paying Web designers/programmers all sorts
of crazy money.  B-)

Red Bird Island Productions
Gordon Worley

Received on Saturday, 9 January 1999 17:29:14 UTC