"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote: > > Garth Wallace wrote: > > > > "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote: > > > > > > Jerry Park wrote: > > > > > > > > Roland wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I would like to hear what you folks think about making mozilla capable of > > > > > handling all Microsoft Internet Explorer specific pages. > > > > > 1) Would this be difficult to implement? > > > > > 2) Would this be a great feature? > > > > > > > > > > I think the answer to 2) is yes, because there are many pages > > > > > made/optimized for IE. Usually these pages will only display correctly when > > > > > using IE. So making our browser capable of handling all IE specific stuff > > > > > should make it better. It would be sad if lots of people would continue > > > > > using IE because its the only browser that can handle all pages. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think... > > > > > Roland > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Pages should be built to standards. Microsoft encourages pages which > > > > meet no standards. > > > > > > > > Mozilla would have to implement ActiveX -- a security risk and not > > > > available except on Microsoft operating systems. > > > > > > Actually IE for Mac has the ability to use Active-X though I have it > > > turned off. (Have one website I have to use it for) > > > > > > Mozilla does support a Variation on Active-X not based on the Microsoft model. > > > Supposedly all the dangerous code is left out (I belive its called > > > either Xpcom or XUL). > > > > No it doesn't. It uses a version of COM called XPCOM. > > ActiveX uses a different version of COM written by > > Microsoft. > > > > Your logic: > > A uses B > > C uses D > > E is a set containing B and D > > therefore, A uses C > > ...which is a logical fallacy. > > > > XUL, on the other hand, is an XML dialect and > > has absolutely no relation to COM. > > > > > I know little more about the subject since I raised the Active-X > > > question a few months ago. I was politely (and not so <grin>) told the > > > above info > > > > No, quite the opposite. You claimed the above, and > > were corrected. Later, you claimed the above, and > > were corrected. Then, you claimed the above, and > > were corrected. Ad nauseum. > > Garth in your own explaination above you say that Active -X is Is > MicroSofts variation COM.
No I did not. I said that it *uses* Microsoft's version of COM. I use a broom to sweep my floor, but that does not mean that I am a broom. > What I said: > > > > Mozilla does support a Variation on Active-X not based on the Microsoft model. > > > Supposedly all the dangerous code is left out (I belive its called > > > either Xpcom or XUL). > > By your own words: > > Active-X is a variation on COM wriiten by Microsoft > XPCOM is a Variation on COM written by Mozilla. No, ActiveX is not a variation on COM written by Microsoft. MSCOM is the variation of COM written by Microsoft. ActiveX is a distinct applet-like technology that *uses* MSCOM.
