> Sure, but usually with a bunch of qualifiers such as "will eventually
> support" and "once the bugs are worked out will largely support". Is
> there a simple chart somewhere showing how much more standards-compliant
> Mozilla is - today - than NC4.77, IE 6, etc? If not, why not?
Well, Netscape has some. They are a little biased, but they give the idea.
And http://www.richinstyle.com has a CSS comparison - we come out best,
and Hixie has pointed out to the owner that half the "bugs" he has marked
down for us are either fixed, or not bugs at all.
> > Are you seriously claiming that these two products have the same level of
> > function?
>
> Not at all! I'm claiming that NC4.77 is USABLE ON A DAILY BASIS, and
> that Mozilla IS NOT. That's not at all "the same level of function" in
> my book!
Many people are using Mozilla, superior standards support and all, on a
daily basis, despite the fact that it's not finished yet.
> [snip]
>
> > > Both Wordpad and Word actually *work* Gerv.
> >
> > I know at least one person whose thesis got eaten by Word who would
> > disagree with you there.
>
> And how many people lost their emails to Mozilla just recently Gerv? I
> don't think you want to get into a bug-fight here Gerv.
No-one's claiming that you should be using trunk Mozilla, in its current
state, as your primary email app. And although we have a few bookmarks
dataloss bugs (unless Fabian fixed them last night, or BenG fixes them in
his checkin next week), I don't know of any mail message ones.
Gerv
