I was under the impression that IE didn't even support XML properly (am I right? someone correct me if I am..) Maybe he means Mozilla won't support IE's buggy implementation? ;)

This is the single most incompetent Netscape/Mozilla piece of the year. (With the exception of various ClieNTServer News articles)

While other pieces written are just doom gloom pieces based on little research, this piece is based on perhaps a *negative* amount of information about Mozilla! Even our CNet hero Paul Festa manages to acknowledge XUL now and then.

I think its about time we redefined the stupidity benchmarks to take this new article into account.

I read the article and he refers to an article about Netscape 4. This article says that Netscape FOUR doesn't support XML. Apparantly he doesn't understand simple sentences, or he just can't read at all.

Personally, I think it was Mr. Bersts intention to err. All he's trying do to is create hype and hoopla... which he has succeeded at.

I don't consider any place like ZDnet or CNet a reliable source for factual news or regarded opinion.

If everyone would quit feeding into such tactics then maybe they would stop such antics.

Unfortunatley, that's just wishful thinking... kinda like saying 'if everyone just cleaned up after themselves, there would be no pollution'... very true, but it will never happen.

The Talkback link is here: http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/whoiswe/talkbackform2.html

I don't have enoygh insight in the technical details of Mozilla to write a decent reply, but I'm convinced others can...

KAL

He didn't even read the link he gave:

The new components to the upgrade -- the Gecko rendering engine, along with XML, Document Object Model, HTML 4.0 and Cascading Style Sheets support -- bring Communicator up to speed with IE 5.0, almost a year after Microsoft released its upgrade.

Of course, there are technologies such as XUL and RDF that blow IE out of the water-not just 'bring it up to speed'

I'm sorry, but Jesse Berst is A WANKER!!! Who the f*ck does this guy think he is?? He talks as if he is God.

Actually, he reminds me of the 2UE/John Laws Cash for Comments story here in Australia (check yahoo.com.au for info).

Ah well, let us wait for the beta, and shut this guy up.

I have posted a short reply. While I do not contribute to Mozilla project, I am quite interested in XML technologies (http://zvon.vscht.cz/ZvonHTML/Zvon/zvonTutorials_en.html) and at the moment the official Mozilla 1.0 is released I will definitively drink a few beers to celebrate, but only if standard support is 100%, from my point it means CSS1, CSS2, HTML 4.0, XML 1.0 , XSLT 1.0 (it should become a W3C recommendation in a few days). Try the link above to see why XSLT is so important.

The link should be: zvon.vscht.cz/ZvonHTML/Zvon/zvonTutorials_en.html

For some reason it was not displayed properly, I will try again below:

http://zvon.vscht.cz/ZvonHTML/Zvon/zvonTutorials_en.html

I just finished reading the accompanied article at PC week http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,1018021,00.html

it claims: A more serious blow comes from software developers, which are starting to tailor Web-based applications for IE. Ivara Corp., a Burlington, Ontario, developer of maintenance tracking software for manufacturing and the oil industries, offers IE as an interface for customers who prefer a Web-based,thin-client architecture; the company chose IE over Navigator because Microsoft has made it easier to build a rich graphical interface using XML and its companion technology, Extensible Stylesheet Language.

And the actual state: I am really sorry for everyone who concentrates on current implementation of XSL in IE5. XSL has actually two major parts XSL (formatting stuff, think of it like a supercharged CSS), this is still in the stadium of working draft and it will be for months to come. And there is XSLT, which will probably become stable recommendation this month. With XSLT you can take an XML document and transform it into another XML, to HTML or to something else. You do not need a browser to use XSLT. On the contrary you can get excellent up to date stand alone parsers (I am using XT from www.jclark.com and most of zvon.vscht.cz is generated from XML in two language versions) which are very useful. The IE5 implementations only very remotely resembles current proposed recommendation (something like comparison of C++ and Java), it is based on old december 1998 draft with MS extensions which were not incorporated to the spec.

But it is true that fully compliant XSLT support is a must for Mozilla.

Obviously articles like this frustrate us to no end. As they state facts that are untrue and easy to prove false. They show utter lack of any kind by the author to actually research what they are reporting on.

Unfortunately anyone with an opinion can post it to the net and have millions read it. People will take it as Gospel. Luckily more and more of these site provide slashdot style comments so readers can refute.

However, view the source here. Mr. Berst has some pretty heavy ties to Microsoft and their agenda. I mean ZDNet has Microsoft stuff plastered all over their site.

This is why the DOJ had to step in. M$ is so big at this point they have the ability to affect millions of people w/o actually doing anything with software. Their FUD department is so widespread that they could probably stop developing software for 1-2 years and still be profitable.

We must as a community remain calm and not "react" to this FUD. We should definitely reply back to such journalists, and post on the discussion forums following these articles.

However, we need to do it gently and not bash M$ at every chance. We need show what Mozilla can do not what we dont like about M$.

I stop ranting and simply end with. In my eyes the browser war has just begun! :)

I think, Mozilla.org/Netscape should use their right (?) to correct this. It is objectively wrong.

I think, it's time to stop dirty journalism.

If people have being designing their applications for IE5 because it is more standards compliant that Netscape 4, and their designs are standards based: then it shouldn't matter if Netscape 5 is used. If they are using proprietry stuff, then they will shoot them selves in the foot.

If people have being designing their applications for IE5 because it is more standards compliant that Netscape 4, and their designs are standards based: then it shouldn't matter if Netscape 5 is used. If they are using proprietry stuff, then they will shoot them selves in the foot.

In the last few months,Jesse wrote an article about how Gecko would rule the embedded appliances world,there's even a link to the old article in the current one. wonder what changed his opinion.

I doubt that this Berst article fits the bill, but has anyone given any thought to the concept of a libel suit. In the US (and presumably other countries) a person or corporation is not free to spout out anything they wish about another company, individual or product. If facts are grossly inaccurate and damages are incurred in the marketplace, a libel suit may be warranted. IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not a lawyer, do not unveil your torches and pitchforks just on my account. Could it be inferred that when Berst and his ilk make big-banner assumptions (The Browser Wars are Over), site spurious information to back up their argument, and never seem to make public corrections, that there is legal recourse? Has anyone else seen Jesse Berst ever admit "Oops! I goofed on that one, lt me set the story straight.

- my $0.02

Well maybe not that heavy measures, but we should definetely let our voice be heard, forcing him to make an official apology. So, everybody, post your comments in the talkback, and let him know what you mean of bad journalism.

In light of the recent flood of ill-informed anti-mozilla articles all appearing simultaneously-- so factually incorrect and full of spin generating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, one can't help but suspect that it's all part of an organized campaign... What are they afraid of?

ZDNet sucks.

If you want to see how Gecko crushes IE5 in standards, including XML, check out this document: http://home.netscape.com/browsers/future/standards.html

This was last updated in March but it will be revised soon enough.

Chris Saito

I can't believe that AnchorDesk has been so degraded recently that it has to spew out a story like this which is mostly false and uninformed. AOL doesn't put Netscape in its main AOL client because 1) they can't, they have a license agreement with Microsoft which is expiring soon, 2) they don't want Microsoft to get out of legal trouble easily when they no longer have a monopoly thanks to AOL switching, and 3) they are using it in other clients such as the new main European effort, Netscape Online. Netscape's market share in other countries is still extremely healthy and it will be okay in the US as soon as AOL's agreement with Microsoft expires and AOL puts the Mozilla project in its clients. In addition, your article says that Mozilla will not support standard web technologies such as XML. If you knew anything about Mozilla, you would know that the entire browser is based around XML and is 100% W3C standards compliant- Microsoft's browser can't even compete in this field, much less be the only decision for people who need XML. XML in Mozilla is much more advanced than anything Microsoft has come up with.

However, the main error AnchorDesk falls into, which is an extremely common error, is to assume that the fact that Microsoft has released a 5.0 version number means that their browser is superior. Netscape 4.5 is the equivalent of IE 5.0 in almost every respect. IE 5 and Netscape 4.5 were both mostly cosmetic changes to the 4.0x browsers. Netscape should have released 4.5 as 5- this has caused a lot of confusion among users. Mozilla, which will be the root of Communicator 5, is in many respects similar to the details of Microsoft's upcoming browser which will be IE6, looking at the few details that have been released- both are completely new rendering engines and pledge 100% W3C standards support. Netscape has already proved that they will accomplish this- downloading the latest Milestone Release of Mozilla confirms this. Whether or not Microsoft's effort to build a new rendering engine and support W3C standards will be successful is yet to be seen.

Right or wrong, and I know he is mostly wrong, there is a reason that so many anti-mozilla articles have been published lately: Mozilla is taking TOO LONG. FUD's 3 components not only work in tandem, they feed off each other. Uncertainty breeds Doubt, and Doubt breeds Fear. People are uncertain about Mozilla and Navigator because they are STILL waiting to see something. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, mostly because I myself am a huge fan of the Mozilla effort, but M10 or even the recent nightly builds do NOT qualify as even adequate. There has obviously been alot of work put into this project, but the result as of now is still unimpressive to the end-user. The UI seems flaky and fragile, the flickering on the main viewport is distracting, and there are still too many fatal bugs. I am not saying Mozilla sucks, nor am I saying the project is doomed. But I believe that the longer the actual product remains in its current state (especially interface-wise) people are going to look at it and decide that it doesn't measure up, regardless of all the great stuff under the hood. The longer it takes for something that is not only usable but FEELS SOLID to come out, the more articles you will see that look like Berst's.

First, he gets noticed by a lot of people who read his article and get either pissed off or smug.

Second, he gets to write an article six months from now about how wonderful it is that Netscape is back in the game. Only one person in this talkback forum noted that he was praising Gecko a few months back; how many will remember this article in six months?

The less time we spend paying attention to FUD the more time we can spending helping Mozilla succeed, not to mention living happier lives. :->

A simple refutation of all the obvious errors and omissions is the most possible compelling counter-argument for newbies who read the article and the talkbacks as well.

I know it's frustrating to see this stuff all the time, but really, Mozilla will succeed or fail on its own merits, not because of dime-a-dozen FUDdy-duddies or the volume of criticism they receive.

Michael D. Melez (myk@zapogee.com)

A former Netscape Sales Manager responds to Jesse:

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/talkback/talkback_212450.html

Hmmm....

Clicked through to Berst's article, and the key sentence reads "And without support for key Web technologies that IT managers and Web developers can get from IE" (note the omission of "such as XML") -- is this a different version than was present earlier?

The M$ trial is far from over, in fact, it has received more incorrect media hype than Mozilla has.

The latest hoopla about M$'s trial was merely a 'finding of fact.... not a verdict. Same sort of hype surrounded 'finding of fact' regarding the Sun vs. M$'s JVM.

M$'s strategy appears to be that of appeal. Let a single judge screw things up and then take it to a multi-judge panel and get it overturned.

This happened in both the Sun vs. M$ JVM case and in the overruling of Jackson himself when the courts decreed that M$ had every right to integrate browsing functionality into their own operating system.

Let's get the facts straight, folks, and not get into a 'pot calling the kettle black' situation. :)

What I love most about this article is the part that says "[Netscape] fell behind in marketing, forcing it to give away Navigator." Yeah, I'm sure Micrsoft giving away it's browser for free had nothing to do with it.

Is anyone else noticing a trend in computer-related media to make Microsoft look as though it got where it was through nothing but hard work? Granted, other companies like Apple, Novell, and IBM made a lot of mistakes that Microsoft profited from, but no-one is mentioning stuff like their not letting PC makers include Netscape, or the stuff that came out during the Caldera case.

I think the media is just after MS's advertising dollars. That may explain a lot of Linux FUD, (how often do you see a Red-Hat ad.)

Guys what do you expect of Mr. Berst? He's on Bill payroll, so it's obvious that he's going to enjoy stashing his smooth talkin' on loads of (let's call them) un-truths.

I've seen this behaviour from the guy ever since I fell for his "Berst Alert" email thing. He's not worth the time reading his email. He's biased, he sways around from arguement to arguement like a weather vane in a gale.

If one week somebody points out that he's gone too far in one direction, then he'll promptly write something to counter it. So don't be surprised to hear some apologetic talk in the near future.

On my part I have unsubscribed from his column. I could not bear the quasi-zealous fervour with which he enjoyed bashing anything Netscape did and lauding the praises of his Lord and Mentor Bill.

Excuse my candor, but I never really like the guy.

:)

Ridiculous articles like this lead people (many from this site) to read Jesse's vitriol. One ad impression. Then, you read someone's response. Impression #2. Then, there's a link from a talkback here to a talkback there. Impression #3. ZDNet, and indirectly Jesse himself, are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just give yourself a quick & simple rule, as I've done: don't read Jesse Burst. He's alarmist, often incorrect, and a total waste of time. We should be spending our time learning the ins and outs of Moz, and helping to find bugs. He'll eat his own words, eventually.

- Adam

Well the good thing about all this is that with all these negative articles giving everyone false negative impressions of Mozilla, they're all going to be in for a surprise once the browser rolls out with ::GASP:: full xml support ::GASP:: [insert key Mozilla feature that no one thinks exist here]

<:3)~~

IE has one major flaw: it doesn't run on anything else but windows. It doesn't run on UNIX, it does run on apple but with degraded functionality and stability, it doesn't run on Palm top computers (excluding wince though I'm not sure). Mozilla runs on all of these and more.

On top of that, the traditional desktop market is relatively shrinking with palm computers and settopboxes popping up all over the place. IE can't compete in this area. While it may stay the prefered desktop browser for x86 pc's running windows, web developers are excluding people if they choose to develop for IE only. So, my guess is that they won't. This will force MS to become more compliant with the standards, something they've been able to postpone due to lack of competition.

My guess is that it will take a while for mozilla to catch on. Probably the first months after its release will be bug fixing and optimizing. Once that first phase is over it will slowly start gaining market share. Also development will speed up due to increased interest from the public. This means that it is unlikely that mozilla will fall behind in development like communicator 4 did.

One word of caution. Mozilla won't compete with ie 5 but with ie 6. MS has had almost a year to work on version 6 so my guess is that ie 6 will have an improved rendering engine that it will be fairly compliant with the standards and will be backwards compliant at the same time. Just like you shouldn't compare ns 4 with ie 5 when you claim the browser war is over, you shouldn't compare ie 5 with mozilla.

OH MY GOD! He *CHANGED* the article's incorrect assertion that mozilla doesn't support XML on the sly without ANY KIND OF ACKNOWLEGEMENT! A real journalist would have acknowleged and apologized for the oversight. Jesus...

THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING. One merely has to look at his sources and how he spins them.

Take this statement:

--------- "Now it appears Netscape's browser won't survive. Zona Research is the latest to declare IE victor with survey results showing 64% of corporations picked IE over Navigator." ----------

Let's pick out the lunacy of this:

1. When Netscape controlled 75% of the browser in '96, did Microsoft say the browser war was "over"? I don't think so. But apparently, to Berst, a 64% lead means "victory" now.

2. But it *DOESN'T* to Zona research. The study cited did claim it was the "end of an era" but not the era Berst is hoping for! Zona didn't say anything about the war ending between Netscape and IE. In fact, its saying that the war has NARROWED into a two-browser competition (they make an analogy to the cola wars which are an ongoing two-brand competition). (See http://www.zonaresearch.com/info/press/99-nov08.htm for Zona's ACTUAL conclusions about the browser war.)

3. The study interviewed a grand total of 236 *CORPORATE* respondants, according to the press release at http://www.zonaresearch.com/browserstudy/1999/nov99/index.htm. They were asked about the browser they used "at work" (see http://www.zonaresearch.com/browserstudy/1999/nov99/chart1_sm.gif ) Note that this study tells us _nothing_ about non-corporate or individual usage.

4. To give you an idea of how this survey was conducted, "approximately 300 corporate IT professionals" (if 236 is approximately 300) from "a variety of market segments" were asked if they used a browser, and if so, what they'd downloaded lately. (See http://www.zonaresearch.com/browserstudy/1999/nov99/index.htm ) Looking at the bottom of the graph at http://www.zonaresearch.com/browserstudy/1999/nov99/index.htm , unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, the browser questions had N=172 -- only 172 respondants to this question? So the 64% victory comes from the PRACTICES (not necessarily PREFERENCES) of 172 corporate user's AT WORK. Great.

5. Of those surveyed in Oct 1999, *NINE* said they were still using IE 3.x. Compare with *FOURTEEN* claimed to be using Netscape Navigator 5.x!! (See http://www.zonaresearch.com/browserstudy/1999/nov99/chart2_sm.gif). Fourteen people (6% of N=232)using a PRE-ALPHA product of Mozilla at work? That's weird.

5. The people interviewed "are selected from the IntelliQuest Technology Panel." (See http://www.zonaresearch.com/products/products.htm#reports) which are 32,000 people on some list I guess. Who are these people? I'm not in any way a survey expert but don't usually they say these people are phoned at random and there's such-and-such a margin of error..? Maybe someone out there knows (?)

5. According to the survey, 69% of users are REQUIRED or ENCOURAGED to use IE by their jobs (http://www.zonaresearch.com/browserstudy/1999/nov99/chart4_sm.gif). But only 64% do, suggesting that 5% are intentionally violating their work's mandate to use IE! And indeed, 31% of companies say to employees "use Netscape" but 5% more (36%) do! (See chart at http://www.zonaresearch.com/info/press/99-nov08.htm) - Looks like Microsoft's well known practices are squeezing corporations to use IE, the users know better :)

5. Zona's list of "key clients" includes... suprise suprise... MICROSOFT (See http://www.zonaresearch.com/info/clients.htm)

Hmmmmmm......someone leave the spin cycle on for too long?

W

I think it's important to note that the reason perceptions about IE "winning the war" are so important now to M$ is that it's self-fulfilling-- the notion that IE has "won" will encourage more people to use IE, thus more firmly establishing it as a standard which in turn causes more people to use it.

That's why it's so important to fight these attempts to declare a "winner" -- because some policymaker at some company who's on the fence on what browser to use is going to read it and go "oh, looks like I'd better go with IE which won the war rather than that non-XML supporting Netscape which is being ditched by AOL. Who wants those headaches?"

Losing the spin war is losing the browser war. We must get back control and get the truth out whenever bogus articles like this come out!

W

PS-- Man, those spelling errors just jump out at you as soon as you hit the submit button :)

Obviously these sites are operated under microsoft activist idjits that don't know what they are talking about. Gee, I wonder where they are getting their sources from, Netscape wannabe's at microsoft? I think its about time we give these people a swift kick in the @$$!

All that time it took for a great browser and no XML the title says it all

Jesse Berst is a blustering windbag with zero credibility. Anyone who has read more than a half a dozen of his "Anchordesk" articles could tell you that.

He gives the strong impression of being a PR whore - ignorantly and compliantly taking it from whatever the latest press release to appear in front of him says.

The Mozilla article is just the latest of articles to reveal the depths of his ignorance.

Frankly, if I were ZD I would be embarrassed to be associated with him. Perhaps they keep him on to generate some extra revenue through the hits that his ill-informed blather produces?

hmm I guess my post was so sharp they didn't post it. The first line "Either you were intentionally trying to mislead the public or just incompetent..." Anyway, if IE5 is so standards compliant, how come I can see PNG's in Netscape 4.7 and not IE5? That's more important to me than how many dynamic tricks you can do.

Put simply, he is an idiot. Though this article is an editorial, it obviously lacks any substantial amount of background knowledge about the subject at hand.

It surprises me that he is an editorial director, as it is obvious that he cannot conduct any type of basic journalistic research whatsoever. Not to mention the lack of literary creativity. Pokemon? Please.

You misinterpreted what I said. My statement regarding M$ appealing wasn't directed towards the 'finding of fact'. I was addressing two issues:

1. The trial is far from over.

2. M$ appears to be taking the appeal strategy and has succeeded already once with Jackson and with Sun Microsystems.

My apologies if I somehow composed my last post to indicate otherwise... although it's pretty clear to me what I meant! :)

We need to start taking the piss out of this guy. How about, "Jesse Burst, Anchor-around-the-neck: Get your head in the sand, and keep it there!". Or what about, "Jesse Bollocks, Anchor Desk: Get misinformed, Stay Misinformed". Anybody up for it?

Uhm..... I don't see where this Berst feller is mentioning XML at all??

What gives?

Confused--

He changed the article without an Update saying "oops! I made a mistake." Just changed it.

Scary :( W

Some people in this discussion (and others at other sites) have noted that there are blatant contradictions between Berst's articles. A journalist once commented that some writers get other people (lackeys) to do their columns. I am convinced that Berst doesn't write his own columns (or even read them), although of course I can't be certain.

I'm sure that Mr. Berst would have mentioned his update if mozAdmin had first contacted him regarding his err, rather than post an article jabbing at him for simply making a mistake.

This kind of behavior is childish and quite frankly it is a bad reflection on Mozilla.org.

Shame on you, mozAdmin.

So, Jesse's taken another about-face on Mozilla it seems. For the Uninitiated, here's a little primer on Jesse.

1) Find an underdog, and hype it as the 'next big thing'

2) Do a follow-up on the underdog in slightly less glowing terms (usually sprinkled with "Microsoft is catching up!!")

3) Put out an article damning the underdog, and tell everyone to "Just stick with Microsoft instead"

4) goto 1)

This is ALWAYS Jesse's modus operandi. He will pick -any- underdog (whether it be Linux, Mozilla or whatever) and pretend to be it's best friend, until NEXT week when he falls back to the "Microsoft is GOD" party line.

Blatant my ass, he made a booh booh and mentioned one term: XML.

Let's burn the sorry bastard at the stake.

Maybe he means XSL? Who knows? The article he links to in that paragraph mentions some Burlington based Co. using IE because of XSL.

In any event, there are better ways to deal with situations like this than what has been displayed here.

I know it goes against the 'Hate all non-Moz' mantra, but people have to grow up sooner or later.

'nuff said

Not if they use IE! hehe!

I'm not the Anon you are referring to but I've helped Mozilla.org by not running around the web spouting 'big, bad, Microsoft and poor, poor, Netscape'..... rantings that contribute to the unjust label that Mozilla supporters are fanatics.

You didn't disappoint me one bit, Christopher.

I think one thing this guy fails to realize is that by releasing the code to the web it is my opinion Netscape/Mozilla has really given the browser eternal life. As long as there are people wanting to tinker it will become better and better. A good example, Linux. As far as developers using IE for their developing needs all I have to say is I hope they have a big hard drive to keep downloading all those security patches Microsoft keeps coming out with every week.

By the way if the release of Netscape 5.0 is next month can I use smart update to upgrade my Mozilla M10 release?????? HAHA

Maybe he even didn't mean to say XSL?? Like I said... who knows?

Maybe he just forgot, mistyped, lost his senses, someone else typed it, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...

It would have been much better handled by simply addressing him about it first before poking fun at him.

Two things bad happened:

1. He didn't mention his rectification of the error.

2. He probably doesn't care for Mozillazine that much now.

But oh well, the damage is done.

Hey Mark,

Good question. I'm sure he does now, though. :)

I first thought he stated that intentionally to stir things up, but after seeing him rectify it... I'm thinking that he just made a mistake.

>Jesse Berst is the journalistic equivalent of Jerry Springer.

>PNG support...whatever...Nav 4 doesnt even support binary transparency >(when did we get that for GIF?), which is still broken in Mozilla under >certain color depths (LINK) but works fine in IE 5. I agree with the fact that PNG >is the often overlooked standard badly in need of _full_ (read alpha >transparency) support in Mozilla. Have you ever actually used navigator 4, or come to think of it, _any_ verision of Netscape? I just checked in Netscape 1.22, 2.02, 3.0 and 4.7 and guess what - they all support binary transparency. As for PNG in Mozilla, it is still under construction - if you went to a building site and saw that you could simply walk off the first floor (ie no wall built yet) would you complain? No, you would say, "well, it isn't finished so why should it be there?".

>I just want my relatively simple homepage to display properly, and the bottom >line for me right now is that IE5 does it, and Mozilla doesn't. Probably due to bad coding on your part (using non-standard features) or something in Mozilla which isn't finished yet. See the MozillaZine Homepage:

"If you hit a page that doesn't display well or has JavaScript errors in Nav5 (Mozilla) because the page uses MS IE4/5 DOM features, Nav4 Layer DOM features, or the LAYER/ILAYER tag, DON'T FILE A BUG in Bugzilla. Instead, use the below email creation templates to send an email to the page's owner asking them to upgrade the page to support W3C standards."

Yeah, I know a few people that have 'played' around with Linux... then nuked it to free up more space for Windows.

Note that in this third-party evaluation of non-validating XML processors, the James Clark XP parser which is used by Gecko/Nav5 tied for the highest rating, five green dots, with a Sun Java entry.

The only Microsoft technology entry on this list, the DataChannel XML Java Parser, got one red star and the notation "Don't even consider using this package until its bugs are fixed." (Note that this is not the native binary XML parser in IE; that wasn't evaluated in this list.)

XML.com - Non-Validating XML Processors http://www.xml.com/pub/1999/09/conformance/nv-analysis.html

...and believe me, all the worst beliefs you have about it and CNet are true and then some. They are the biggest whores, though I am sure you don't need to be an insider to figure that out. The line between editorial and marketing is compromised on a daily basis. Editors are not explicitly told to favor certain vendors and products, but the message comes through loud and clear all the same. It all depends on who they are partnering with. ZDNet is involved in a huge web of partnerships, and they do not disclose this. The most blatant example of their selling-out is the smutty X10 ads. Zillions of readers complain, and it has cost them readership, but apparently X10 is paying them too much money to go away. A less-blatant example is story links. The links in a given story are a combination of genuinely useful links, and "partner" links, that may or may not be the best choice.

...and believe me, all the worst beliefs you have about it and CNet are true and then some. They are the biggest whores, though I am sure you don't need to be an insider to figure that out. The line between editorial and marketing is compromised on a daily basis. Editors are not explicitly told to favor certain vendors and products, but the message comes through loud and clear all the same. It all depends on who they are partnering with. ZDNet is involved in a huge web of partnerships, and they do not disclose this. The most blatant example of their selling-out is the smutty X10 ads. Zillions of readers complain, and it has cost them readership, but apparently X10 is paying them too much money to go away. A less-blatant example is story links. The links in a given story are a combination of genuinely useful links, and "partner" links, that may or may not be the best choice.

...and believe me, all the worst beliefs you have about it and CNet are true and then some. They are the biggest whores, though I am sure you don't need to be an insider to figure that out. The line between editorial and marketing is compromised on a daily basis. Editors are not explicitly told to favor certain vendors and products, but the message comes through loud and clear all the same. It all depends on who they are partnering with. ZDNet is involved in a huge web of partnerships, and they do not disclose this. The most blatant example of their selling-out is the smutty X10 ads. Zillions of readers complain, and it has cost them readership, but apparently X10 is paying them too much money to go away. A less-blatant example is story links. The links in a given story are a combination of genuinely useful links, and "partner" links, that may or may not be the best choice.

*sigh* Since when did alpha versions of IE work correctly? I'd say Moz is way ahead on that front alone. Please, let's compare apples to apples.

Someone mentioned about the X10 ads on ZDNet, and they're hella annoying. I've complained directly to X10, with no reply. Those X10 ads seems to associate the "X" part of the product with sex, otherwise, why would they have pictures of seductive females in them if they're selling webcams. Also, they're playing psycho on people since people like to click on porno banners, making a normal ad look like one at the PG13 level makes idiots follow them.

X10 shall die.