Jonathon Lamon wrote: > Netscape Basher wrote: > >> Brian Heinrich typed: >> >>> Netscape Basher wrote: >>> >>>> Jonas Jørgensen typed: >>>> >>>>> blackbox wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ¿What make them qualify to be categorized and be named 'standards'? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If they are accepted by a recognized, trustworthy, independent, >>>>> standard-defining organization. For instance: >>>>> >>>>> Internet Engineering Task Force Request For Comments: >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc >>>>> >>>>> World Wide Webconsortium Recommendations: >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations >>>>> >>>>> /Jonas >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which Netscape only started to care about when they became the >>>> minority in the browser market, then they started to cry foul. >>>> >>>> It is MS Explorer that defines the standards used, not the w3c. >>>> The w3c means nothing. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Kyle, Kyle, Kyle . . . : You /know/ that argument is hog-wash, 'cos >>> the only way in which you can legitmate it is by reference to market >>> share, which results in the tautology: IE is standard because it >>> has the biggest market share; therefore, because it has the largest >>> market share, it is the standard. >>> >>> 'Standard' in this case stands apart from any consideration of >>> market share. Standards (in this case, largely defined by the W3C) >>> are something browsers (IE, NS, Moz, Opera, whatever) are supposed >>> to implement in a consistent manner so that /mark-up/ will be >>> displayed consistently; hence, the issue isn't 'standard' /per se/ >>> but rather /compliance/ with those standards. Not to have standards >>> -- let alone a consistent implementation of those standards -- will >>> not only result in chaos. >>> >>> I, for one, don't want to go back to the days of proprietary tags >>> and extensions. Further, the problem in allowing IE to 'be' or >>> 'define' the 'standard' is that you end up marking up around the >>> quirks of the browser (that is, the lapses with its standards >>> compliance), and the moment a newer version of IE, say, implements >>> standards better, or a more standards-compliant browser becomes the >>> dominant browser, those IE-defined standards will come back to bite you. >>> >>> Here endeth the lecture. >>> >>> Brian >>> >> >> >> Brian, the days of proprietary tags are still here. And if Netscape >> were still the market leader, they would still be pushing their own >> propprietary tags. If Netscape becomes the leader again, which it >> won't, they would once again, push proprietary tags. >> >> Explorer defines what is done because they are the majority. For a >> webmaster to make a page that looks like garbage on IE is suicide. >> The good thing about Explorer is that it does a great job in >> displaying pages that are w3c compliant. >> > > > hmmm... if Explorer does such a good job displaying pages that are > w3c compliant, then a webmaster whom creates a page that is w3c > compliant, even if minor differences, should display just as well in > both Explorer and in Netscape. And if you take in to account that > Netscape/Mozilla is MORE compliant with w3c standards than is IE, if > it doesn't display as well in Netscape as it does in IE, maybe it's > the fault of the webmaster and a acurate display of his abilities as such. > > Take for example the guy who programmed the DragonBallz Movie actor > picking page and complains so much about how Netscape/Mozilla makes > his page look crappy because it makes the entry boxes 3 lines wide > instead of one. My personal opinion on that page is that it's crappy > anyway. Not very asthetically pleasing, and the little scroll bars the > IE 6 displays on the page make it look even crapier than the multiple > line entry boxes. > > Then again, that's my own opinion. > > As for the standard arguement. Something that is proprietary is not a > standard no matter how large of a market share the application or > program has. A standard is something that anyone can achieve and if > the application in question is implementing something in a way that > only they do so and only they can do so, that is proprietary. > > Dominance does not a standard make. > >
That's why we really need the validator icon so ordinary people will know that it is the webmaster's fault, not the browser's. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6211
