Full Article Attached Editorial: NGLayout in Communicator 5.0 - Truth and Consequences

Thursday October 1st, 1998

I've had a few days to consider the NGLayout / Communicator 5.0 issue and the WSP petition, and finally have some words to speak on it. So, click "Full Article" below if you're interested in reading mozillaZine's first editorial opinion piece.

I should make clear before you start that mozillaZine is an independent site, and the opinions expressed in this article and in past articles in no way represent the feelings or opinions of the Mozilla Project or Netscape. We like the guys, but we would never presume to speak for them!

#14 Re:Editorial: NGLayout in Communicator 5.0 - Truth

by Brian Hartman <>

Wednesday October 7th, 1998 9:27 PM

You are replying to this message

I'm not a programmer, a developer, or anything like that. I'm an end user, and I use Communicator, dammit! I've been reading this CSS/NGLayout discussion with some interest, and I have a question: What exactly is the problem that this new layout engine is supposed to fix? I have yet to visit *any* web site that made Communicator 4.5 crash. I have yet to visit *any* web site that didn't display correctly in Communicator. About the only problem I've seen that I do think needs fixing is background locking. As far as CSS and such, I've gone to,, etc., all of which seem to use style sheets, and they behave just like they're supposed to. Sometimes I think you developers want to add new features just for the sake of adding them. Please, spare us the bandwidth and stick to what works! As far as the portal goes: Yes, I think it's a shame that Netscape hasn't more aggressively marketed their browser. I can see why, though: If it's free, why aggressively market it? Where's the money in *that*? Netscape *is* a company, folks, and they're out for more than just popularity. They're out for moolah. :) All the reports I've read are that Netscape's portal is far and away a huge success. It's MS that is going to have to do the catching up, and from the reviews I've read of the new MSN site, they have a long way to go. Yes, it would be nice if Netscape supported HTML 4.0 and XML. It's always nice to see HTML expanded and strengthened. That *is* the language of the web, after all. (At least until XML catches on.) I realize it's a bit of a pain to develop for two browsers. But if you stick with basic CSS, Netscape should do you just fine. Let's not forget Jscript, MS's pathetic attempt at a Javascript rival, or ActiveX itself, which, I dare say I've seen nary a whimper of on the Net. (When was the last time you couldn't load a page in Netscape because it required Active X?) What these attacks against Netscape are really about I think are the fact that people want MS and NS to "bury the hatchet" and just comply with each other's technologies. Does anyone seriously think that's gonna happen, whether they adopt a "standard" or not? C'mon, people, think! If the browsers supported the same technologies, what would the difference be?? And *then* Netscape would be dead in the water. If you really want Netscape to be a contender in the market, don't fight against the company. Let the company adopt the "standards" at its own pace. Better a stable, svelte browser that behaves itself than a bloated, OS-consuming memory hog that crashes your system. A vanilla-flavored Web is *not* where I want to go today!