Re: msn , coincidence?

[Parish]

Albert wrote:

> ahmetaa wrote:
> 
>> According to news.com,
>> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE 
>> now.
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
>>
> Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
> blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They will 
> let 6.1 see the MSN page however. 
> And according to the CNET article, "
> 
> "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 


Oh really? then why does the W3C validator throw up this for www.msn.com?:

Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML 
parser.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation

I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier 
that is not in my catalog.

You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE 
declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document:


> said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
> Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
> technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
> or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, we 
> do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser that 
> does support the" standards
> 
> So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
> too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...
> 
> 

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Hoess 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I filed a bug against Endico on this several months ago, and nothing has 
> happened.

The bug is http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89885

-- 
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Art Wagner]

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

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Christopher Jahn]

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

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Chris Hoess]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pratik wrote:
> 
> Yes that was really good. btw, I just tried validating www.mozilla.org 
> and it complains about not finding doctype and charset. Once you 
> override it, it passes without any error. Can someone fix the doctype 
> and charset on www.mozilla.org? (or is it intentionally left out) It 
> shouldn't be that hard to add.
> 

I filed a bug against Endico on this several months ago, and nothing has 
happened.

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Malodushnïkh]

Gotta be careful how you construct those analogies. :)

I'd say, Mozilla/N6 should be as much different from IE as a BMW is from 
a 1975 Ford Pinto Coupe.

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And Yet Mozilla/Netscape 6 scoops up every thing an IE user says would
> be neat in Moz/N6. Do we truely want to emulate them? Mozilla/N6 should
> be as much different from IE as a Cadilac is fom a Rolls Royce.
> 
> "Malodushnïkh" wrote:
> > 
> > They're just liars. Every word out of their mouths is a lie. They're
> > lousy human beings.
> > 
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > They backed out and are going to allow Mozilla and Opera. Does anyone
> > > know what the hell they mean when they say
> > >
> > > > But, Visse warned, "the experience may be slightly degraded simply 
> > > > because
> > > > they don't support the standards we support closely, as far as the HTML
> > > > standard in those browsers."
> > >
> > >
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7660935.html?tag=tp_pr
> > >
> > > Pratik.
> > >
> > > On 10/25/2001 1:16 PM, ahmetaa wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to news.com,
> > > > posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE 
> > > > now.
> > > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> > > >
> > > >
> > >

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Alpha]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> According to news.com,
> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd

I can live without msn and all the m$ propaganda.

When ms writes that moz 0.9.5 is not very secure what aload of 
horseshit. IE is a gigantic security prob or a masive spyware.

So just ignore them use mozilla.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Pratik]

On 10/26/01 04:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Pratik wrote:
> 
> 
>>Try validationg www.msn.com with w3c's validator. Even their "Upgrade 
>>your browser" page has errors in it!
>>
>>Check out Opera's press release
>>
>>http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/20011026.html
>>
>>Mozilla should make one too.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Heh, I like the little notes at the bottom, read this news article in 
> xhtml, check this news article with the w3c xhtml validator :)
> 
> 

Yes that was really good. btw, I just tried validating www.mozilla.org 
and it complains about not finding doctype and charset. Once you 
override it, it passes without any error. Can someone fix the doctype 
and charset on www.mozilla.org? (or is it intentionally left out) It 
shouldn't be that hard to add.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.mozilla.org/

Pratik.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.]

And Yet Mozilla/Netscape 6 scoops up every thing an IE user says would
be neat in Moz/N6. Do we truely want to emulate them? Mozilla/N6 should
be as much different from IE as a Cadilac is fom a Rolls Royce.

"Malodushnïkh" wrote:
> 
> They're just liars. Every word out of their mouths is a lie. They're
> lousy human beings.
> 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > They backed out and are going to allow Mozilla and Opera. Does anyone
> > know what the hell they mean when they say
> >
> > > But, Visse warned, "the experience may be slightly degraded simply because
> > > they don't support the standards we support closely, as far as the HTML
> > > standard in those browsers."
> >
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7660935.html?tag=tp_pr
> >
> > Pratik.
> >
> > On 10/25/2001 1:16 PM, ahmetaa wrote:
> >
> > > According to news.com,
> > > posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> > >
> > >
> >

-- 
---
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

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.]

Was able to go to MSN webpage with no problem using Communicator 4.7.8 Mac

I downloaded and tried previously MSN Messenger for Mac.  Its seems to
work but there doesn't seem to be a way to convert or use AOL Instant
messenger Screen names.

Jerry Park wrote:
> 
> Random Liegh wrote:
> 
> > Albert wrote:
> >
> >> ahmetaa wrote:
> >>
> >>> According to news.com,
> >>> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but
> >>> IE now.
> >>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> >>>
> >> Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're
> >> blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They
> >> will let 6.1 see the MSN page however. And according to the CNET
> >> article, "
> >>
> >> "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard,"
> >> said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World
> >> Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web
> >> technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards
> >> or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer,
> >> we do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser
> >> that does support the" standards
> >>
> >> So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would
> >> too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Actually; their logic seems to be more "we cannot control their
> > experience" and less about standards, so there you go...it's ie 4 or
> > nothing.
> >
> > And I've tried loading msn under netscape for (under linux, however);
> > and it doesn't work for me, personally. Hadn't tried it on Mozilla, though.
> >
> 
> They wouldn't have spent all that money giving 'free' MSN service with
> purchase of a computer if they didn't have some motive. Guess what that
> motive is ...

-- 
---
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

Re: msn , coincidence?

[neil . marshall]

Pratik wrote:

> Try validationg www.msn.com with w3c's validator. Even their "Upgrade 
> your browser" page has errors in it!
> 
> Check out Opera's press release
> 
> http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/20011026.html
> 
> Mozilla should make one too.
> 


Heh, I like the little notes at the bottom, read this news article in 
xhtml, check this news article with the w3c xhtml validator :)

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Pratik]

Try validationg www.msn.com with w3c's validator. Even their "Upgrade 
your browser" page has errors in it!

Check out Opera's press release

http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/20011026.html

Mozilla should make one too.

Pratik.

On 10/26/01 02:14 AM, DeMoN LaG wrote:

> Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Oct 2001: 
> 
>>>But, Visse warned, "the experience may be slightly degraded simply
>>>because they don't support the standards we support closely, as
>>>far as the HTML standard in those browsers." 
>>>
> 
> Sounds to me like they are going to design their site using things like 
> document.all or some other proprietary IE feature, and then go on and 
> say that Opera and Mozilla aren't up to date on the standard and it's 
> their fault they don't work with it
> 
> 

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Nigel L]

Title: 




Nigel L says:
MSN US and Canada don't work for me; the notorious redirect page comes up.
Brazil, UK, Australia, France are all fine.
I'm using Win build 2001102603 with Win ME.

Jay Garcia wrote:
On 10/26/2001 11:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Scott wrote:
  
thier site doesn't work with my Mozilla browser despite reports that they've opened this back up to other browsers...perhaps because I'm using Linux?

I just read the C|Net article and went to the page using Windows 2000 and the latest nightly build.  I still get the error.

6.whatever works just fine. In fact I couldn't find a link that didn'twork on the entire site.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Malodushnïkh]

They're just liars. Every word out of their mouths is a lie. They're 
lousy human beings.

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> They backed out and are going to allow Mozilla and Opera. Does anyone 
> know what the hell they mean when they say
> 
> > But, Visse warned, "the experience may be slightly degraded simply because 
> > they don't support the standards we support closely, as far as the HTML 
> > standard in those browsers."
> 
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7660935.html?tag=tp_pr
> 
> Pratik.
> 
> On 10/25/2001 1:16 PM, ahmetaa wrote:
> 
> > According to news.com,
> > posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> > 
> > 
>

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Albert]

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
>
Mozilla does have the best W3C support out there.  Unfortunately, MS is 
throwing everyone for a loop by saying they'll open it but they haven't.

The qualifier in the sentence I believe is "a great experience".  To 
them, that means having an MSN Messenger hook where your buddies show up 
on the side of a page.  That's the only "enhancement" I've ever seen in 
IE instead of Moz.

-- 
Albert

"We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready-made'?"
--Winston Churchill

If sending email, remove the obvious spam-preventer from my email address.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Jay Garcia]

On 10/26/2001 11:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Scott wrote:
> 
> 
>>thier site doesn't work with my Mozilla browser despite reports that 
>>they've opened this back up to other browsers...perhaps because I'm 
>>using Linux?
>>
> 
> 
> I just read the C|Net article and went to the page using Windows 2000 
> and the latest nightly build.  I still get the error.
> 
> 

6.whatever works just fine. In fact I couldn't find a link that didn't
work on the entire site.


-- 
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

Re: msn , coincidence?

[barney]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Scott wrote:
> 
>> thier site doesn't work with my Mozilla browser despite reports that 
>> they've opened this back up to other browsers...perhaps because I'm 
>> using Linux?
> 
> 
> I just read the C|Net article and went to the page using Windows 2000 
> and the latest nightly build.  I still get the error.
> 
> 

Me, too - this morning's build on Win98.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[neil . marshall]

Scott wrote:

> thier site doesn't work with my Mozilla browser despite reports that 
> they've opened this back up to other browsers...perhaps because I'm 
> using Linux?


I just read the C|Net article and went to the page using Windows 2000 
and the latest nightly build.  I still get the error.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Scott]

thier site doesn't work with my Mozilla browser despite reports that 
they've opened this back up to other browsers...perhaps because I'm 
using Linux?
see below for the message I get:


Attention: Web Browser Upgrade Required to View MSN.com

If you are seeing this page, we have detected that the browser that you 
are using will not render MSN.com correctly. Additionally, you'll see 
the most advanced functionality of MSN.com only with the latest version 
of Microsoft Internet Explorer or MSN Explorer. If you wish to visit 
MSN.com, please select the appropriate download link below.

 * Internet Explorer for Windows
 * Internet Explorer for Macintosh
 * MSN Explorer for Windows

©2001 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.  Terms of Use 
Advertise  TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement  GetNetWise

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Andrea Monni]

Albert wrote:

>
> Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
> blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They will 
> let 6.1 see the MSN page however. 
> And according to the CNET article, "
> 
> "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 
> said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
> Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
> technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
> or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, we 
> do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser that 
> does support the" standards
> 
> So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
> too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...


Your point would be a good point for a press release by the Mozilla PR 
folks: "Our browser is more standard then IE, they should suggest 
Mozilla/NS6.1 for their site". :)

Andrea
-- 
 "Freedom was mine! But but all
Andrea Monni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> of a sudden there seemed
Y! IM: andreamonni   precious little difference
ICQ: 7387142 between being set free -- and
  being cast out."
  Moonshadow, J. M. De Matteis

Re: msn , coincidence?

[DeMoN LaG]

Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Oct 2001: 
>> But, Visse warned, "the experience may be slightly degraded simply
>> because they don't support the standards we support closely, as
>> far as the HTML standard in those browsers." 
> 

Sounds to me like they are going to design their site using things like 
document.all or some other proprietary IE feature, and then go on and 
say that Opera and Mozilla aren't up to date on the standard and it's 
their fault they don't work with it

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Pratik]

They backed out and are going to allow Mozilla and Opera. Does anyone 
know what the hell they mean when they say

> But, Visse warned, "the experience may be slightly degraded simply because they 
>don't support the standards we support closely, as far as the HTML standard in those 
>browsers."


http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7660935.html?tag=tp_pr

Pratik.

On 10/25/2001 1:16 PM, ahmetaa wrote:

> According to news.com,
> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> 
> 

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Malodushnïkh]

MSN is no longer a Web site. It's a Windows site.

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Orrin Edenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I say we call the Microsoft PR division and ask them questions about 
> what they are gonna do with those other browsers.  I looked around on 
> the Microsoft site, and found this under the consumer group PR Contacts:
> 
> MSN, MSN Services (Hotmail, MSN eShop, MSN Internet Access, MSN 
> Messenger Service, MSN Chat, MSN Web Communities, MSN Calendar, MSN 
> Mobile, MSN Search, MSN Web Companion), and Passport:
> Waggener Edstrom (Bellevue) at 425-637-9097
> 
> That looks like the person we would need to talk to.
> 
> 
> Orrin
> 
> 
> Albert wrote:
> 
> > ahmetaa wrote:
> > 
> >> According to news.com,
> >> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE 
> >> now.
> >> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> >>
> > Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
> > blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They will 
> > let 6.1 see the MSN page however. 
> > And according to the CNET article, "
> > 
> > "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 
> > said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
> > Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
> > technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
> > or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, we 
> > do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser that 
> > does support the" standards
> > 
> > So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
> > too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...
> > 
> > 
>

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Jay Garcia]

On 10/25/2001 12:16 PM, ahmetaa wrote:

> According to news.com,
> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
> 
> 

Works here, no problem. Didn't try EVERY link but at least a dozen or so
what worked ok.

-- 
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Orrin Edenfield]

I say we call the Microsoft PR division and ask them questions about 
what they are gonna do with those other browsers.  I looked around on 
the Microsoft site, and found this under the consumer group PR Contacts:

MSN, MSN Services (Hotmail, MSN eShop, MSN Internet Access, MSN 
Messenger Service, MSN Chat, MSN Web Communities, MSN Calendar, MSN 
Mobile, MSN Search, MSN Web Companion), and Passport:
Waggener Edstrom (Bellevue) at 425-637-9097

That looks like the person we would need to talk to.


Orrin


Albert wrote:

> ahmetaa wrote:
> 
>> According to news.com,
>> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE 
>> now.
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
>>
> Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
> blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They will 
> let 6.1 see the MSN page however. 
> And according to the CNET article, "
> 
> "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 
> said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
> Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
> technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
> or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, we 
> do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser that 
> does support the" standards
> 
> So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
> too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...
> 
> 

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Steve]

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

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Jerry Park]

Random Liegh wrote:

> Albert wrote:
> 
>> ahmetaa wrote:
>>
>>> According to news.com,
>>> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but 
>>> IE now.
>>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
>>>
>> Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
>> blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They 
>> will let 6.1 see the MSN page however. And according to the CNET 
>> article, "
>>
>> "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 
>> said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
>> Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
>> technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
>> or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, 
>> we do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser 
>> that does support the" standards
>>
>> So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
>> too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...
>>
>>
> 
> Actually; their logic seems to be more "we cannot control their 
> experience" and less about standards, so there you go...it's ie 4 or 
> nothing.
> 
> And I've tried loading msn under netscape for (under linux, however); 
> and it doesn't work for me, personally. Hadn't tried it on Mozilla, though.
> 

They wouldn't have spent all that money giving 'free' MSN service with 
purchase of a computer if they didn't have some motive. Guess what that 
motive is ...

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Random Liegh]

Albert wrote:

> ahmetaa wrote:
> 
>> According to news.com,
>> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE 
>> now.
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
>>
> Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
> blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They will 
> let 6.1 see the MSN page however. 
> And according to the CNET article, "
> 
> "All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 
> said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
> Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
> technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
> or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, we 
> do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser that 
> does support the" standards
> 
> So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
> too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...
> 
> 

Actually; their logic seems to be more "we cannot control their 
experience" and less about standards, so there you go...it's ie 4 or 
nothing.

And I've tried loading msn under netscape for (under linux, however); 
and it doesn't work for me, personally. Hadn't tried it on Mozilla, though.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Albert]

ahmetaa wrote:

> According to news.com,
> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE 
> now.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd
>
Look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97222.  They're 
blocking Netscape 6.1 because of unspecified security flaws.  They will 
let 6.1 see the MSN page however.  

And according to the CNET article, "

"All of our development work for the new MSN.com is...W3C standard," 
said Bob Visse, the director of MSN marketing, referring to the World 
Wide Web Consortium, which is developing industry standards for Web 
technologies. "For browsers that we know don't support those standards 
or that we can't insure will get a great experience for the customer, we 
do serve up a page that suggests that they upgrade to an IE browser that 
does support the" standards

So, by their logic, MSIE should be banned too, eh?  Netscape 4.x would 
too, but Mozilla really shouldn't...


-- 
Albert

"We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready-made'?"
--Winston Churchill

If sending email, remove the obvious spam-preventer from my email address.

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Alejandro Alvarez Melcon]

The site works in netscape 4.x but does not work
in mozilla0.9.5. Increadible.

--

Re: msn , coincidence?

[Orrin Edenfield]

ahmetaa wrote:

> According to news.com,
> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd


I wrote to MSN Support a couple days ago, and got this response:

Hello Orrin,

Thank you for contacting Microsoft.

We appreciate that you have taken the time to let us know your feelings
about this issue. We consider customer feedback an opportunity to
improve our business.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to
this message.

Thank you,

Joey
Microsoft Online Customer Representative

Original Message Follows:
-

Lisa,
When trying to customize the layout of the MSN.com home page, it prompts


me to log in.   Thats fine, but after I put in my username and password
in, I get this message:

We're sorry, but this feature requires a PC running Windows 95 or later
and Internet Explorer 4.0 or later. To download a more current version
of Internet Explorer for your PC, use the link below.

I am running Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition and I am using Mozilla
0.9.5 to view the web site.  It would be a shame if you guys made the
best web portal in the world, and you could only view it on Microsoft
browsers!!

Take a look at the W3C Recomendations for web sites, Mozilla supports
the W3C recommendations.
Thanks,
Orrin


MSN Customer Support wrote:


  Hello Orrin,
  Thank you for writing to MSN.com Customer Support.

  We would appreciate if you could provide more information about
your concern. Kindly restate your message or provide us with details so
that we can give you the assistance that you need or direct you to the
proper department.

  Hope to hear from you soon.

  Sincerely,

  Liza
  MSN.com Customer Support


  --- Original Message ---
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: 
"MSN Customer Support"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 Sent:Mon Oct 22 14:49:41 
PDT 2001
  Subject: MELY CC - MI3 Technical Problems (error messages,
display problems)  Support Mozilla based browser


  [area]: Technical Problems (error messages, display probl
  ems)

  [comment]: Support Mozilla based browsers.

  [connection]: Dial-up

  [os]: Windows 98

  [browser]: Other

  [firstname]: Orrin

  [lastname]: Edenfield

  [email]:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [form-id]: 
feedback




--
Orrin Edenfield  -   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  - 
   www.orrinrule.com 





 

Re: msn , coincidence?

[jesus X]

ahmetaa wrote:
> 
> According to news.com,
> posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd

Coincedence? No.

--
jesus X  [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
 email   [ jesusx @ who.net ]
 tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
 warning [ I am an American. Of this, I am proud. ]

msn , coincidence?

[ahmetaa]

According to news.com,
posibly you've already heard, msn does not work with no browser but IE now.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7655334.html?tag=mn_hd