Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
> My suspicions are that the site was built using Microsoft tools, which we
> all know, is the king pin of compatibility... NOT!
Uhh... I was making websites as big as e.g. search pages in Louvre, along
with PLS technology behind... And can assure you that the main thing is
that Netscape seems to ignore Internet standards. With NN4, for example,
they were trying to show as many features as they could. In result
they made browser not only unstable, but also buggy, sluggish and
not compliant to anything except Netscape. There is a whole set of
info about Web standards on W3C ( http://www.w3.org/ ) , read on.. :-)
M$ web tools also have their own share of shame, like stupid FRAME
generation by Frontpage, etc. But IE is a acceptably stable browser.
NN4 is not. NN6 is not even worth waiting for it to open.. :)
Opera is O.K. Arachne is good.....
PS
I don't use M$ web authoring tools, just Dreamweaver + VSlick...
And use mainly Alpha server with Alpha Unix, by the way...
(and yes, NT4 for mail + web browsing)
PSPS
> > - <rant>How could you abandon the noble goal of cross-platform
> > compatibility???</rant> Seriously, I'm interested in what
> > motivated/drove the decision.
<rant>How can you explain that stupid Netscape engineers could not
imagine in their little heads that image can be clicked? Yes, <IMG>
element does not have a onClick behaviour in Netscape's Javascript...
</rant> :)
- -----
St.
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
Echelon/Carnivore lines: Bob Black, Hakim Bey,
Ralph Klein, Sabotage in the American Workplace