Chris Waterson wrote:
> It was smart for you to ask this question while ekrock is on sabbatical.
> I'll summarize (probably badly) his objections. They've appeared many
> times on this newsgroup, I think.
>
> 1. Not that many ``important'' sites use layers.
>
> 2. Implementing layers means implementing all the bizarre 4.x
> layer behavior. (``Bug compatibility'')
>
> 3. It might be possible to simulate layers using a JS (+XBL?)
> ``includes'' that site authors could reference as a
> transition strategy. (Or that get automatically pulled in
> when Moz runs in some ``compatibility mode''.)
>
> If you buy these arguments, then implementing layers as part of core
> layout is a waste of time. So the question becomes, is it possible to do
> (3), and if so, how much work is *that*. To which I answer, ``ask hyatt
> and ben''.
>
> chris
>
> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>
> > So, what would it take to support layers? It's hurting us pretty badly
> > and I think that it would be worth it to try to support it, even though
> > it would be a lot of work.
> >
> > What would it take?
> >
> > --Chris
I'm a web developer and have a few comments to make on this. 1) I think it is
late to be considering this at this point. 2) You're going to have a fantastic
browser in NS6 and its derivatives that support the W3C standards, I wouldn't
waste time trying to support layers. Just put out the word for people to
upgrade to the newer version BUT and its a big BUT correct the errors and
deficiencies that were present in the current release of NS6.0 and do it soon.
That's where your efforts should be going. I for one will move to the new
Netscape (or one of the mozilla builds once it's been stablized some) and drop
Netscape 4x like a hot potatoe. Once the newer browser becomes more widely
available I won't be doing anything to specifically support netscape 4x.
