Garth Wallace wrote: > > "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.
I give up everytime I explain what was said to me the definition gets changed again. I believe you do it to take delight in twisting things around so only you can look like a genious and others look like pikers. I even quoted again what you said in your reply. didn't change a word in fact I placed the quoyed material in Quote Marks. In not one of the previous past post about Active-X did : "ActiveX is a distinct applet-like technology that *uses* MSCOM.". Ever come up not once Once again I am direct quoting from this thread YOUR Comments. " No it doesn't. It uses a version of COM called XPCOM. ActiveX uses a different version of COM written by Microsoft." I've already said that I was unsure about the term XUL or XPCOM so I corrected for that. Okay Folks if you want to know about Active-X and XPCOM down to the last detail contact Garth Wallace. He is resident wizzard, shaman, and genous on the subject. There is no way anyone else can post on the subject and not get corrected. TID -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:275-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/america/default.htm http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/message/default.htm
