And it came to pass that Netscape Basher wrote:
> Christopher Jahn typed:
>> And it came to pass that Netscape Basher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonas J�rgensen 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a shame that most of the rest of the world disagrees.
>> AT&T no longer supports FrontPage extensions, opting
>> instead for w3c compliance.
>>
>
> You are a webmaster what is more important.
>
> Making sure the page looks good on MS Explorer first.
Not according to any of the recent studies done - even MS is
making their IE6 more W3C compliant.
>
> I notice you don't use the Netscape/Mozilla usenet reader.
> At least you know an inferior product.
>
Yes, I do. And I also know that webmasters who know what
they're doing code to standards, don't use MS proprietary crap.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
A person is just about as big as the things that make them
angry.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
