And it came to pass that 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
MS has all ready fled that position, and removed the warning
message.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I intend to live forever or die trying.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
