Weekend Discussion: Microsoft and 86%
Friday July 14th, 2000
There has been a lot of discussion about Microsoft's release of IE 5.5 recently, especially in regards to their support for standards such as CSS, DOM, and XML. Apparently Microsoft is developing new proprietary technologies at the expense of standards compliance in core web technologies.
With all this hoopla aimed at Microsoft, we shouldn't be letting Netscape off easy. I think it's time for Netscape to come out and state clearly where they expect to be in terms of standards compliance at version 6.0. If it is not the 100% that we had been told to expect, it's in their best interest to say why. Remember, Netscape 6.0 will have its own "behavior" implementation (XBL) that is, at this point, just as proprietary as Microsoft's DHTML behaviors (the dev team plans on submitting XBL to the W3C in the future).
And although Mozilla.org has not taken a position one way or another on Mozilla's standards compliance, it would be nice if they could weigh in and let the community know what they're thinking in terms of standards support in Mozilla's first release.
What do you think about standards support and compliance? Is it important? Or should the placation of existing customers be the priority? Let us know!
I don't think XBL and XUL should be used on the net. They should be local as they are languages to define the user interface of an application - they shouldn't be used for describing the content.
With microsofts Calendar tag for example (I read about it being new in IE5.5) it could be used on the net or in the interface, but since the interface in IE isn't customizable you sort of have no choice on where you use it.
When you do use any propriatary languages on the web - you lock out other browsers. Thats why you should only use, on public www sites, publicly defined standards (On intranets you should be able to do whatever you want) - as all web browsers should know how to display the code. Because its a public standard the requirements are visible to all programmers and there should be no excuses for faulty implementations.