RE: Make Microsoft follow the spec.

Netscape 6 does not support Arabic and Hebrew and thus is perfectly useless in
my part of the world (from Morocco to Pakistan).

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of NeTDeMoN
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:03 PM
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Make Microsoft follow the spec.
>
>
> I work on the Mozilla project and you don't have to remind me that Netscape
> 4.x stinks. Netscape 4.x is out of date and Netscape 6.01 is the version
> most people should be using if they have enough memory resources. Therefore,
> on "DHTML" pages, people should drop Netscape 4.x support entirely (since
> its standards support stinks) and make the pages support Netscape
> 6.x/Mozilla/Opera/IE 5. Microsoft is probably dragging their heels on full
> HTML support because fully supporting the standard would allow people to use
> Netscape 6.x on pages and it would be better to make pages only support
> proprietary MS html (at least for their wallets).
>
> Netscape 6.x almost fully follows the standards (there are only a few
> examples I can think of where it doesn't, such as CSS features not
> implemented yet).
>
> In response to Jonathon Gray, yes - I want you to write pages for Netscape
> 6.x too. If you're page doesn't work right in Netscape 6.x, then you're page
> most likely doesn't follow the standard and hence doesn't work correctly.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:david.woolley@bts.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 6:28
> To: 'NeTDeMoN'
> Subject: RE: Make Microsoft follow the spec.
>
>
> > I'm sick of Microsoft's browser not following the spec. Internet
> > Explorer's
> > support of the w3 HTML spec and DOM spec is futile at best. Why can't it
> > follow the spec fully like Mozilla or Netscape?
> >
> Netscape 4 is a much worse travesty than IE5.
>
> --
> --------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 26 February 2001 14:52:26 UTC