Christopher Jahn wrote:
> 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.
>
>
For Netscape, and others but not Mozilla. I think the suggestion of
a press release stating Mozilla's position is an excellent one.
Art
