What a load of old piss wavering around in the wind. Mind your shoes.

What good are standards that cannot be followed? What good are new standards when the old are not used? What good is the web when it only works on half the browsers out there? What good is the effort to build two webs, one for each browser? What good are "innovations" that never see the light of day, or rust in the rain through lack of use? What good is asking for something better?

"Its seems like the WSP members could use their time more constructively -- perhaps by helping design Mozilla, or by testing it."

But that's not their job. They're web developers. They are under no obligation to show allegience to any particular browser. They expect that the browsers they are given are sufficiently compatible that they can create their product (websites) in an efficient manner.

"I think there are more constructive things to worry about than the W3C's "faulty standards process." Like, perhaps, what should be added to CSS3, XHTML, XML, etc; or, how the aforementioned standards should be implemented."

W3C isn't as much about innovation as those who live on the bleeding edge, like Netscape or Microsoft developers. It did take them until HTML4.0 to include some of the stuff NN and IE have supported for years. W3C should be about defining what a standard is, and then providing some sort of authentication for products that meet their standards. Otherwise there is no point, the standards have no meaning. People who haven't suffered from standards deficiencies are beginning to think that "90% standards compliant" is enough. We should not move forward until we achieve excellence at what we have already discovered.

"Further, I think the people at Netscape are likely biased against Microsoft, and have no business rallying the Internet community to pressure it to better support standards -- effectively trying to foment some grassroots campaign -- one that has been already been going on for some time throughout more knowledgable circles. "

Of course they're biased against Microsoft. Microsoft is their competitor. Ford is biased against GM, and wouldn't hesitate to point out the faults in GM's products. But I think you're confused. Netscape isn't rallying anyone. The Web Standards Project is an independent organisation.

"Further, an argument that compares safety concerns for the general public to the standardization desires of a select few priveleged enough to be o n the Internet is inherently flawed -- no civil trials will result from an Internet client not complying with standards, nor will the government step in and mandate that a product adhere to such standards. "

How about video standards such as VHS? Or PAL/NTSC? I suffer from living in one of the few places that uses PAL, and I can't easily view foreign video cassettes on my ageing equipment. Recent equipment sold here supports both PAL and NTSC standards, so that people buying new VCRs can watch both styles of videotape. That doesn't affect my personal safety and well being (other than the emptiness provided by not being able to buy "A Clockwork Orange" locally ;)

"I haven't bothered to even read the petition on the WSP site [..]"

You've made that rather clear.

Don't forget that the WSP organized a petition against mozilla.org, and based on the support that was shown, the work that had been done on a capable but non-standards-compliant browser was ditched, and a new one created from a fully standards compliant engine. This because people spoke out.

A small history of the world:

Netscape 4.0 sucks in comparison to IE4/5. It's buried. Bummer.

No Mozilla. No standards compliance.

Another history:

Netscape 5 buries IE. History repeats and Netscape grows fat and bloated and non-standards compliant.

Ashes in your mouth.

Vive le competition. Vive la choice.

I don't know the the URLs/documents where they say it, but I have both heard personally from MS people and read, printed on paper that:

- MS has done user surveys and these show their users do not need/demand standards compliance so they will not bother doing it

- MS is trying to implement the standards but is faced with the same shortage of resources as any other software company

Really, that is what they have said. I seem to remember there are some official MS web pages that basically state MS is committed to implement all relevant standards. Believe what you want.

In any case, there are MS people sitting in the W3C working groups and they are doing their share in defining the standards. As for implementing them, we'll see...

How about that Java "standard" which is controlled by Sun.

I don't mean to condemn people who choose not to register as MozillaZine members merely because they haven't done do, far from it, so please allow me to qualify that last statement: I grow weary of people who seem to visit this site regularly and leave nothing in their wake but criticism of the Mozilla effort, the efforts of those who support it, and of Mozilla's current or potential allies.

The fact of the matter is that we can have an open Web, or we can have remade in the image of Microsoft. Microsoft even tries to change the vocabulary with which people discuss the Web to suit itself, and is largely succeeding. I am heartily sick of it. Every day I deal with people who think every programming language ought to be coded as if it were VB.

We can either strive to have some kind of open standards, or we can roll over and allow the Microsoft Way dominate our thinking. In my view, nearly anything is preferable to the latter.

And I have about run out of patience for those who would rather quibble than to address this, the real problem.

n/t