Steve wrote: >Outside of the fact that this is Microsoft speaking... > >Visse sez that they didn't want to support browsers "that we know don't >support (W3C) standards or that we can't insure will get a great >experience for the customer." > >My impression was that Mozilla is the litmus test for W3C compliance. >Am I incorrect in this? For instance, does IE, have more compliance >with W3C (I mean does it have what the most of what W3C asks for, not >counting additional things that W3C never asked for)? > > >If Mozilla is the most W3C compliant browser out there, why doesn't >AOL/Netscape or Mozilla issue a press release saying so and blasting >Microsoft for its tactics? A casual reader would conclude that Mozilla >is not a W3C compliant browser based on this News.com article. >Presumably Microsoft is banning because of the "can't insure will get a >great experience for the customer" component which is the "can't insure >that it's a Microsoft product connecting" route. > >The article has been updated BTW that Microsoft is going to "support" >(i.e., let in) the other browsers. > >Steve > Mozilla does have the best W3C support out there. Unfortunately, MS is throwing everyone for a loop by saying they'll open it but they haven't.
The qualifier in the sentence I believe is "a great experience". To them, that means having an MSN Messenger hook where your buddies show up on the side of a page. That's the only "enhancement" I've ever seen in IE instead of Moz. -- Albert "We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready-made'?" --Winston Churchill If sending email, remove the obvious spam-preventer from my email address.
