Positive Review of Netscape 6's Standards Support at ITWorld
Sunday June 4th, 2000
Kevin Davis (k3davis) sent in a link to a very positive look at Netscape 6's standards support at ITWorld. Included is a glossary describing many of the standards as well as some of Mozilla's own technologies.
#1 overly positive?
Monday June 5th, 2000 2:32 PM
Is it just me or is this article "overly positive"?
#2 Re: overly positive?
Monday June 5th, 2000 3:29 PM
I don't know, but I sure hope he doesn't expect complete CSS2 and some CSS3 for Netscape 6 PR2, the 'next release' in my opinion.
#3 Re: Re: overly positive?
Monday June 5th, 2000 4:18 PM
Is the RichInStyle's CSS 2 test a "complete" test?
I noticed a couple of the demonstrated bugs are fixed, but many are still evident.
#6 Re: overly positive?
Monday June 5th, 2000 11:00 PM
It's better than hearing rants about the widgets or another Mac diatribe...
#10 Re: overly positive?
Wednesday June 7th, 2000 6:36 AM
It was "overly positive" and it was also wrong. This article comments on Netscape in the biased way some MozillaZine users have accused other articles of commenting on Internet Explorer.
#4 I want to love Mozilla
Monday June 5th, 2000 9:08 PM
I really want to love Mozilla, but it is hard.
First let me state that it is a goal in my life to do whatever I can to support standards. I think computing standards are all that stand between mankind and our ability to _really_ apply our technology. Also, as someone who has to maintain altogether too much lowest common denominator web sites at work, my personal site (http://www.hubick.com/) is my voice to say how _I_ think a web site should be designed. My web site is designed to adhere to the strictest versions of all the latest standards, currently strict xhtml 1.0. I use all PNG images (burn all gifs!). etc, etc. Although I am a web geek, I'm not trying to purposely push my site beyond reach of a reasonable browser. Anything I use on my site is designed to degrade gracefully to any older browser, yet due to partial or buggy suppport, mozilla breaks. I have been walking around for the past year telling everyone I know that Mozilla is more important than the second coming of Christ (or whatever), but I'm starting to get dissapointed.
All I have ever wanted in life is a browser with good standard support. Something that can display my web site. Now, I figure my site is pretty basic, and it sure is no box acid test. But throught the course of Mozilla's development it has never once been able to do a better job of displaying it than IE has.
First problems with PNG transparency ( http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13627) broke my images, or at least made them look terrible (half stransparent). I finally gave up on them and got rid of the transparency. After HTML itself, images are about as basic a request as I can make from a browser. PNG is THE unencumbered image standard for the web, it has been a standard for years now, IE get's it right for me, Moz doesn't.
I have been a web geek right from the start. I sat around for years whining about style sheets and getting stamped as a purist while Netscape and MS did all they could to not follow the standards and ruin what I felt the web should be. Now that browser manufacturers have come to their bloody senses and realized what some have known all along, I finally can separate my presentation from my structure. Or so I thought. I am a big XML geek as well (I wrote a parser and have implemented DOM). Naturally, the release of XML is something I awaited for a long time. XHTML, which now replaces HTML 4 is the best thing to every happen to the web. XHTML allows me to create a web page devoid of the years of legacy cruft. XHTML and style sheets is the web the way I always wanted it. Enter bug 39330 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39330) My whole website validates as _strict_ XHTML, and follows all the guidlines for maximizing backward compatibility with HTML user agents. One of these is to serve XML with an HTML mime type (XHTML spec sec 5.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#media) Yet the bug noted above means doings this causes the browser to instantly implode.
I will give the great folks at Mozilla and Netscape kudos for fixing http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38356 as at least now I can launch the browser (on my win2k box) to have it crash on my site.
#5 Re: I want to love Mozilla
Monday June 5th, 2000 10:29 PM
This site won't work in some new nightlies because of bug 34520.
#7 Re: I want to love Mozilla
Tuesday June 6th, 2000 6:45 AM
I aggree with you in terms of web standards, and so on. But you have to remember that Mozilla is still under development. New fetures get added, they occasionally break existing ones, which then get fixed. Once feature completeness hits, alot more time is going to be spent fixing and speeding up. It's important to remember it's not a finished product, and is not meant to be yet. It will be, sure, but it's not yet.
#8 Re: Re: I want to love Mozilla
Tuesday June 6th, 2000 8:47 AM
I know, but in light of the "overly positive" article, I am mostly trying to play devils advocate here. I guess I am just more frustrated about the fact that bugs like 39330 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39330 and 34520 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34520 don't receive more attention. To me these bugs seem the same as if HTML support was broken for everyone and the developers just left it for months and months knocking it out from one milestone to the next. If the whole world upgraded their web pages to comply validate and comply with the latest web standards, Mozilla wouldn't display any of them...yet people still walk around touting how standards compliant it is in articles such as the above?
What do I want? I want to see the QA team mark both those bugs as nsbeta2 or PDT+, or whatever will imply that they deserve more attention than the little they get now.
#9 Re: Re: Re: I want to love Mozilla
Tuesday June 6th, 2000 9:07 AM
There are only so many developers. Inevitably bugs are prioritised based on perceived severity. We want to reach as bug free a product as possible but in the interim we want a browser that can display most web pages - and by and large it does.