W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Clarification needed on ALT/TITLE tooltips

From: Brian Bober <netdemonz@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030626211139.62360.qmail@web11708.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

We are running into the same issue now with Mozilla of having two codebases.
Its too risky to convert Mozilla to fully rely on the independant GRE/toolkit
without having the XPFE version available just in case. Eventually, it will
probably be phased out when no one needs it anymore.

I don't exactly fully get what's going on with Microsoft. I thought something
was up for the 2 years that IE stayed virtually the same. Although Tasman can
still be brought to Windows, I imagine. And MSN Explorer will still exist on
the Mac (which I guess is allowed because its part of MSN the ISP and not
Windows?), based on Tasman.

I guess integrating IE into the operating system is saying that its part of the
operating system, and as long as they don't port it or make it available when
its not integrated, its fine. Then they could just say their operating system
uses it for layout of things like the explorer view for browsing the disk.

It further perplexes me as a volunteer for Mozilla.org what is going on with
AOL + Netscape. There is a NDA, so we won't know until it happens (though I
could really find out if I cared enough -- which I don't). It appears, in my
estimation that since Mozilla is so good, Netscape the browser will be dropped
and the funding will simply remain for the Mozilla project. The work it takes
to convert Mozilla to Netscape each release cycle is not really worth the
trouble since you can get almost everything in Mozilla you can in Netscape. A
lot of the things being distributed with Netscape screwed up existing
installations and was excess bloat. They could be available on the AOL
installation CD instead. The other issue was that Netscape's bugscape was
private on the Netscape's LAN and volunteer Mozilla developers couldn't access
it even when it would have been helpful on occasion. Another thing is that
Mozilla is always one or two months ahead of Netscape, so people in the know
will usually grab Mozilla instead. All the applications that are distributed
with Netscape can be distributed with AOL instead. Netscape the web portal and
all its content and developers can be turned over to AOL/TW as a major portal
site for them (it already is to a large extent). I doubt they'd drop the
Netscape portal as it is a moneymaker. Mozilla will still be continued as both
a toolkit for communications or regular application development (on the lines
of .NET), and possibly might become part of AOL's back-end in the future, but
there is no rush because of the court case. Its just there in case they need
it. That's my guess. We'll see what happens.

All that concerns me is whether Mozilla will have to find its own funding, or
will AOL keep it.

--- "Jason M. Kikta" <kiktajm@muohio.edu> wrote:
> I think he was saying (as others have) that Microsoft should have gone 
> with the superior IE5/Mac codebase and ported it to Windows, rather than 
>   trying (and failing) to fix its Windows cousin. Also, the official 
> word is that IE will no longer be made for Mac and will no longer be a 
> stand-alone version in Windows. Somewhat amusing, since they had always 
> claimed that it *wasn't* standalone _and_ was non-removable in its 
> Windows incarnation.
> Jason
> Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > On 6/26/03 6:57 AM, "Brian Bober" <netdemonz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Isn't IE for Mac being canned, though?
> > 
> > 
> > My understanding of the announcements is that there will be no more major
> > revisions to a stand-alone IE period (on any platform).
> > 
> > 
> >>I guess they will still continue to use
> >>tasman for MSN?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > 
> >>I'm not trying to brag, but Microsoft could learn a bit from Mozilla having
> >>the same codebase on every platform.
> > 
> > 
> > It's not as black and white as you put it.  Having a separate codebase
> > allowed Tasman to develop at much faster speed (than either IE/Windows or
> > Mozilla), and thus IE5/Mac shipped in March of 2000, with standards support
> > far ahead of any other browser (including Mozilla, whose NS6 release weeks
> > later merely proved my point, since reviews universally panned NS6 in
> > comparison to IE5/Mac), which was also confirmed in numerous reviews.
> > 
> > Also, IE6/Windows benefited from many of the innovations that Tasman was
> > able to make since it was a separate code base that could attempt solving
> > problems that were deemed risky or even impossible (e.g. fixing the box
> > model, DOCTYPE switching etc.), solutions that were also copied by Mozilla
> > (and other browsers) for that matter.
> > 
> > So there are advantages/disadvantages with either approach.
> > 
> > 
> >>--- Asbj?rn_Ulsberg <asbjorn.ulsberg@nrk.no> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tantek ?elik wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Note that Internet Explorer for Macintosh behaves properly
> >>>>in this regard since version 5 released in March of 2000,
> >>>>that is, only displaying the 'title' attribute in tooltips,
> >>>>and NOT displaying the 'alt' attribute in tooltips.
> >>>
> >>>Ok. Nice to know. This points out the extreme stupidity of
> >>>having two seperate developing teams working on IE for Mac
> >>>and IE for Windows.
> > 
> > 
> > So you are saying it would have been less stupid to simply port IE for
> > Windows to the Mac (which is what would have happened with only one team),
> > and then have it also incorrectly display 'alt' attributes in tooltips
> > rather than have it actually behave correctly?  Please recheck your logic.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Tantek
> > 
> > 

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 17:11:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:50 UTC