Prev: ANN: Seed7 Release 2010-04-18
Next: Analysing parallel applications with Petri Nets
From: Andrew Poelstra on 20 Apr 2010 16:20
On 2010-04-20, Lie Ryan <lie.1296(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/20/10 14:22, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>> The real tragedy of that situation is that a number of Microsoft's
>> non-standardisms are actually better than the equivalent "standard"
>> features - i.e., selecting subsets of textboxes.
>>
>> Whether these inconsistent "features" were added because of
>> Microsoft's standoff-ish attitude toward web standards, or
>> some deeper prejudice, I don't know. But there are a number
>> of cases where it was clear that the decision was not made
>> based on technical merits.
>
> The question is whether IE6 is a HTML web browser?
>

No. Absolutely not. BUT, Internet Explorer was there first, and the
standards body had an opportunity to see how they had implemented
things, and how Mosaic/Netscape/Firefox/Opera/etc has implemented
things, and see the pitfalls and successes of those approaches.

In addition to that, not breaking compatibility would be a nice goal,
although in this case that would have been impossible.

> I say not. Standards is standards however badly specified they are, and
> if you claim to implement a standard, then you have to follow the
> standard however bad the specification is, otherwise you are not and
> cannot claim to be implementing the standard. Since IE6 deliberately
> behaves against the standard, then this means IE6 isn't implementing
> HTML standard. That means IE6 is not a HTML web browser, only a
> "HTML-like" browser.

The thing that is easy to forget (especially after IE 6 come out and
wouldn't die) is that Microsoft was here before the W3C, and the way
they did things wasn't incorrect when they invented it.


Also, I think HTML specifically was implemented correctly and mostly
completely by all major browsers during this time. The real problems
were Javascript and CSS.

--
Andrew Poelstra
http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
From: Andrew Poelstra on 21 Apr 2010 16:50
On 2010-04-21, cbcurl <cbcurl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 4:20�pm, Andrew Poelstra <apoels...(a)localhost.localdomain>
> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-20, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The question is whether IE6 is a HTML web browser?
>>
>> No. Absolutely not. BUT, Internet Explorer was there first, and the
>> standards body had an opportunity to see how they had implemented
>> things, and how Mosaic/Netscape/Firefox/Opera/etc has implemented
>> things, and see the pitfalls and successes of those approaches.
>
> I am not sure what exactly you are claiming, but the HTML 1.0 spec
> dates
> from 1993 but IE did not come along until 1995. Of course, IE
> extensions
> did have influence on later versions of the standard.
>

Who defined the HTML 1.0 standard before the W3C existed?

>> The thing that is easy to forget (especially after IE 6 come out and
>> wouldn't die) is that Microsoft was here before the W3C, and the way
>> they did things wasn't incorrect when they invented it.
>
> Well, MS obviously existed before the W3C, which was started in 1994,
> but IE did not which seems to be what you are claiming.
>

I am claiming that IE predated web standards. I was wrong on
that point (often I think like HTML started with version 4,
but of course that is untrue).

What I should have said is that IE's dynamic HTML predated
any usable Javscript/DOM standard, since dynamic scripting
is, after all, where browsers differ the most in their
implementations.

Am I correct?

--
Andrew Poelstra
http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: ANN: Seed7 Release 2010-04-18
Next: Analysing parallel applications with Petri Nets