Netscape Basher wrote: > Brian Heinrich typed: > >> 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. >>> >> >> >> 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.
