On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Ken Yap wrote:
> >MS managed to usurp the entire browser market in the same time :(
> >Their browser is world class and supports all the W3C (or should
> >I say MS) standards.
>
> Really? I heard it was very non-compliant.
Don't believe everything you hear ;)
MS/IE is CSS compliant and works well with layers.
It also handles XML. Now, regarding personal privacy,
security, etc., MS/IE is an abomination against nature,
the spawn of the devil (well Bill, actually), and should
be nuked out of existence.
Regarding CSS on Netscape: it displays crap crap crap
all over the screen with CSS and layering. Surely
you've seen this on the web, e.g. www.olympics.com.au
uses layers and Netscape botches it terribly.
Mild standards example:
the URL http://username:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
is not accepted by MS/IE whereas Netscape handles it OK. Who's
right? MS! The username:password form of the URL is only
allowed for ftp:// URL's. But I still like Netscape's ability
to handle it, a la curl.
BTW: I do NOT use IE, I use Netscape 4.72 on Linux. I personally
think IE sucks, maybe since I am so used to the way Netscape gets
things done. I hope and pray IE never hits Linux ... it would
prolly corrupt your machine so terribly that you'd need to do what
most 'doze users do every few months: reinstall.
Note: when I develop a web site, it *must* be tested on IE
since there are *so many goddam inconsistencies* between
browsers and platforms. That's about my only exposure to the
beastie ... standards compliance. And IE wins hands down.
Put that in your collective pipes and smoke it.
--
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
