Response to Jeffrey Zeldman of the WSP
Tuesday November 7th, 2000
It didn't take long for the Web Standards Project to come out with yet another hilarious piece of rambling.
Mr. Zeldman writes, "The petition by David Flanagan asks Netscape to release a standards-compliant browser, as promised. And as part of that, to incorporate bug fixes which already exist, due to the work of Mozilla engineers. That's anti-Mozilla bias? I can't follow your logic."
Did I mention anti-mozilla bias in my article, in regards to the Flanagan petition? No. Did I say anything about anti-Mozilla bias in my piece at all? No. I don't even know how to respond to arguments against comments I never made. Maybe that's because Mr. Zeldman has no idea who he is directing his comments towards.
Mr. Zeldman seems to equate my opinions on my site with the opinions of anyone and everyone else. He states, "Now someone else criticizes Netscape's implementation of your work...." and "I believe you owe it to yourselves..." and "If you don't want Netscape to bring consumers the best possible fruit of your labors, then why have you labored so long and so hard?" and "I don't think your attitude will serve you well in the marketplace...".
Who are you talking to, Jeffrey? If you want to address Netscape, address them. If you want to address mozilla.org, address them. If you want to address me, aim your comments at me, and stop obfuscating by implying that I speak for anyone other than myself.
In regard to Mr. Zeldman, I only made the specific charge that he neglected to actually examine Netscape 6's standards compliance before making his comments in Dave Flanagan's petition. Not surprisingly, Mr. Zeldman didn't answer the charge in his piece.
Mr. Zeldman writes, "Now someone else criticizes Netscape's implementation of your work, and instead of seeing it as support for the work you've done, you attempt to demonize the author."
In fact, Jeffrey, David Flanagan chose to not mention the fact that Netscape 6, in its current form, would be the most standards compliant browser on the market. He doesn't give any indication of how Netscape 6 stacks up against IE 5.5 Win or IE 5.0 Mac. In fact, he specifically gives the impression, in the title of his piece, that Netscape 6 is utterly non-compliant ("Netscape Navigator 6.0 to Fail Standards Compliance"). In Mr. Flanagan's piece, I see no support for the work that has been done *at all* (except for the patches for the bugs that he has an interest in). I am not alone in this assessment. Many Mozilla/Netscape developers felt that Mr. Flanagan's comments were extremely one-sided, unfair, and utterly out of touch with the development process. But Mr. Flanagan doesn't just paint an untrue picture of Netscape 6's standards compliance. He then uses this incomplete information to encourage others to support his view. And on top of that, he encourages them to tell Netscape to stop the release of their product, when they have RTM candidates! The audacity!
Mr. Zeldman, who railed against name-calling in my piece, recommends that I see a psychiatrist. But it seems that I'm arguing with someone who is himself arguing against his own made-up version of my statements. Someone who addresses me in the plural. Who seems to extract content from Dave Flanagan's article that doesn't exist. You make the call.
Jeffrey is right about one thing. We can't communicate at all. I can't communicate with someone who twists my words so transparently, who seemingly makes up facts to suit his opinions, and who refuses to investigate the truth about Netscape 6's standards compliance.
Do the tests. Netscape 6, when released, will be the most standards compliant browser on the market. And the WSP will still be led by a gentleman who seems to have no interest in basing his opinions on facts.
#12 Re: Re: Re: Who is he talking to?
Wednesday November 8th, 2000 1:15 PM
You are replying to this message
Eric, you are correct. Some of them have been checked into the trunk. That does not mean that they didn't cause problems. A couple of days isn't really enough time to assess the results of some of the changes that Flannagan was demanding. Some of these bugs were pretty serious patches, even total rewrites of certain pieces of functionality. I think it's safe to say that these weren't the only bugs keeping us from having full and bug-free implementations of the standards. If these had been fixed, you can bet that Flannagan would have demanded the next 9 on his list. Mozilla 1.0 will have some of these bugs fixed. We will have others fixed too. ROC's viewmanager rewrite which you can enable in daily builds now fixes a number of serious problems for example. But you have to remember that the branch to Netscape 6 happened on 9/22. That's about 6 weeks of development that could have been enough divergence that patches, even after thorough testing on the trunk, could cause minor or serious problems on the branch. I commend Netscape for doing some of this testing on the trunk and taking quite a few really good (and sometimes risky)fixes near the end of their development cycle and I don't begrudge them for drawing the line at some point. Like I said above, there are another 9 compliance bugs lined up as soon as these are fixed and you can never do it all.