Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer’s XML Rendering


We’ve just confirmed an issue that has started to be reported on newsgroups and forums that after installing Netscape 8 the XML rendering capabilities of Internet Explorer no longer work. That means that if you navigate in IE to an XML file such as an RSS feed http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/rss.xml or an XML file with an XSLT transformation applied then rather than seeing the data you are presented with a blank page.

We currently have the following work around for people that are hitting this issue:

  1. Uninstall Netscape 8
  2. START->RUN
    1. Type: regedit
    2. Hit ENTER
    3. Navigate to the following:
    4. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension
    5. Highlight and right-click the node titled “xml” and select delete.
    6. Restart Internet Explorer

Unfortunately if Netscape 8 remains installed then the registry key is continually rewritten so this is an essential step if you are to be able to view XML content in IE.

We are currently continuing our investigation and are looking forward to working with Netscape to resolve this issue.
Thanks
-Dave

Comments (229)

  1. Anonymous says:

    I really don’t want to sound cynical, sarcastic or satirical, but that is one hell of a way to prevent users from switching to another browser.

    Are you guys absolutely sure it’s a conflict with IE? I’m assuming then that the XML/XSLT works fine in Netscape 8 and may choose to use it as the main browser, thus ignoring IE?

    I really am looking forward to IE7, so I hope you guys can find a fix for IE6 and include it in IE7 as well.

    And since you guys can read the hundreds of requests on this blog alone for full W3C standards support in IE7, I won’t request it again ๐Ÿ˜‰ .

  2. Anonymous says:

    I didn’t think Netscape could get any worse. At the moment, can you say why they did this? I can’t think of any reason since the gecko xml parser should work just find for anything they need, and I don’t recall this issue with the betas. Maybe its a bug in some custom xslt parser?

    The worse part is that this hurts them as well. The xml feed you posted doesn’t work in Netscape 8. Well, to clarify, it doesn’t if Netscape is using Trident.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Why the hell are Netscape writing registry entries under Internet Explorer’s section? This after releasing "the most secure browser ever" with known holes in?

    Yes, it uses Trident underneath, but it’s a fully fledged app, not a plugin.

    Shows once again that it was Netscape incompetence that led to IE’s dominance, not monopoly "abuse".

    PS If there are any Netscape browser developers reading this, your UI is pathetic.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Cue endless conspiracy theories about MS’s "dirty tactics"

    Honestly, the rubbish you have to put up with.. my heart goes out to you guys. Keep up the good work with IE7

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’ve got NS8 installed, and can view the supplied link just fine in IE… (SP2)

  6. Anonymous says:

    Does this problem breaks windows update ?

    And if yes, what’s the error message displayed ?

    TIA

  7. Anonymous says:

    @Doug Wright

    Is that first release or the patched version? I have the former and it doesn’t work at all on XP SP2.

    After reading your post, I went back and loaded the blog entry then the links. IE stayed the same, but Netscape generated a different output, an image icon. I wish it’d make up it’s mind.

  8. Anonymous says:

    @snowknight

    I’ve got 8.0 installed.

    The feed page works just fine in IE, Firefox, NS8/Gecko and NS8/IE.

    Shrug

  9. Anonymous says:

    This raises the question of why the registry has no security in the first place.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Ant: What do you mean by "no security"? You can ACL any part of the registry to restrict it as you wish. ACLs are apply to user accounts (and the apps running under them).

    If you wanted to "secure" the registry to prevent Netscape from writing to the IE portion, you’d have to run IE from a different account (different "token") than Netscape — that way IE could access its portion and Netscape could access its portion. Is that what you mean?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Vincent I think that was quite valid question. Even MS says people shouldn’t modify MS’s registry settings and offer that option only for troubleshooting. Why should programs go change IE or other OS settings unless user specifically wanted such to happen?

    I think this clearly points out a flaw in the system. In LH no doubt any program trying to change other programs or the OS registry settings will just find these changes disappear when the program is restarted.

  12. Anonymous says:

    That’s it! I’ve been stumped by this problem as my xml with xsl transformation stopped working (blank page).

    Thank you!

  13. Anonymous says:

    And now we know why the Moz codebase struggled under AOL stupidity.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Randy eh ๐Ÿ˜‰

  15. Anonymous says:

    This would be funny if it weren’t so ironic. OK, it’s funny. We’ve just confirmed an issue that has started to be reported on newsgroups and forums that after installing Netscape 8 the XML rendering capabilities of Internet Explorer no longer work. To paraphrase the old Microsoft-bashing line: "Netscape ain’t done…

  16. Anonymous says:

    First, it looks like Netscape 8 doesn’t handle XML either when using Trident. So it trashes it for both Netscape and IE.

    Second, to Chloe and anyone else wanting to take potshots at old-school Netscape: This browser was not actually developed by the same company or people that developed Netscape 1-4 or even Netscape 6-7. AOL effectively dissolved that company two years ago (it exists in name only), and they outsourced development of NS8 to a company called Mercurial Communications.

    The "heir" of Netscape, the company, is essentially the Mozilla Foundation, and the heirs of Netscape, the browser, are Mozilla and Firefox. You’ll note that neither of these disables features of IE.

  17. Kevin Daly says:

    Sorry, I can’t resist one little potshot at old-school Netscape: this takes me back to the days when Navigator was still my preferred browser and IE was not yet its equal – but if I was rash enough to uninstall an instance of Netscape it charmingly took half of Windows 95 with it (on the apparent assumption that "if Netscape doesn’t need something anymore, *nothing* needs it").

    Those were the days.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Now that they’ve turned the brand into a portal and a low-cost ISP, and with all the Firefox/Mozilla variations out there I seriously can’t understand why AOL doesn’t just let the Netscape browser die? Why would anyone out there still be using it anyway?

  19. Anonymous says:

    To Kelson:

    Regarding ‘new’ Netscape, well they’ve obviously learnt the lessons of why they once failed. Not. Their UI is inconsistent and ugly.

    And the ‘old’ Netscape ethos continues to pervade the Mozilla Foundation today. Their software is buggy and bloated.

    It’s obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which, there will be no compelling reason to use it.

    Like other open standards extremists Mozilla are too insular. They should work on what end users want (UI) instead of what a whiny minority of web developers want.

    Instead of using Flash which is installed on 97% of computers they insist on implementing SVG. How many pages do you know of that use VML, let alone SVG? And Mozilla are more than happy to ’embrace and extend’ – think of ‘moz-‘ in CSS.

    Rest assured that the old Netscape idiocy is alive and well, both at Netscape and Mozilla, just with better marketing.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I’m really looking forward to IE7, which, from what I hear, should have better support for things like alpha-transparent PNG images, more CSS2 capabilities, etc., that I would have loved to be able to use over the last few years when something like 5% of the browsers out there supported them. I’m tired of leaving out nifty features because they "only" work in Mozilla, Opera and Safari. I’m tired of writing code based on the published specifications and finding that the world’s most popular browser does something strange with it, like requiring an empty paragraph at the end of the page in order to make a border visible. I’m sure it will take several years for everyone to migrate, but I would like to think that (a) IE 7 will improve matters and (b) enough people will upgrade that us "whiny web developers" can just build pages instead of hacking around zillions of browser incompatibilities.

    Of course, I won’t be able to use it at work, since we’re standardized on Windows 2000.

    As for "Netscape" learning why "they" failed before — Netscape 8 is made by all new people. AFAIK they’ve never built a web browser before. Ever. They’re not even *called* Netscape. AOL hired outside people and tacked the name on the browser. And I agree with you that they don’t seem to have done a good job.

    Firefox being "buggy and bloated?" I disagree, but that’s a matter of opinion. I can only think of one FF bug that’s given me problems since it hit 1.0, but you may have run into others. And "bloat" is simply a synonym for "features I don’t use." One person’s bloat is another person’s make-or-break requirement.

    Mozilla-specific CSS extensions: You’re kidding, right? The whole reason they begin with "moz-" is to discourage people from using them outside the browser UI or experimental sites. It deliberately *avoids* the classic "embrace and extend" technique, which involves taking a published standard, extending it, and getting people to *depend on* your extensions.

  21. Anonymous says:

    To Chloe:

    "Instead of using Flash which is installed on 97% of computers they insist on implementing SVG."

    Are you talking about natively supporting Flash? Why would any browser do this when there is a perfectly good (and as you say, well-deployed) proprietary plugin available?

    If you’re not talking about Firefox supporting Flash natively, then what do you mean by "Instead of using Flash…they insist on implementing SVG"? How would Mozilla "use Flash" to improve the browser?

    I guess I misunderstood your comment.

    Regards,

    Jeff Schiller

    P.S. Sorry for continuing the side distraction of the relevant issue regarding Netscape 8’s recent bug.

  22. Anonymous says:

    It is great that you are providing a way for people to restore Internet Explorer to its full state of functionality in case they are inclined to do so, but considering that Internet Explorer chokes on XML prologs and application/xhtml+xml content, does it really matter if its XML support is completely broken rather than remaining partly broken and partly obsolete?

  23. Anonymous says:

    To Kelson:

    Firefox is bloated because it eats memory like no tomorrow, and then refuses to release it. It actually has a reasonably sparse feature set, which is good, but with Deer Park it seems to be moving towards bloat like SVG. Even worse the bloat is ‘behind the scenes’ – there will be next to no UI improvements.

    And Mozilla is perfectly capable of proprietary extensions. See their prefetch for another example.

    To Jeff Schiller:

    Whether things are implemented as a plugin or natively is pointless semantics when it is implemented on > 97% of installs. Instead of improving what works (ie Flash), SVG is a overengineered bloated hog. But what more can you expect when it’s designed by committee vote?

    I really hope IE doesn’t implement SVG natively, because that will effectively kill SVG fad dead in the water. It’s time for MS to impose their authority.

    Realise this: no-one in the ‘real world’ outside militant webmasters cares about standards. They don’t care about corner cases like Acid2. People want a browser which shows their pages. Webmasters are of course forced to test their pages, coding around corner cases if necessary, and so there are no problems.

    Back on topic, I can’t see any possible reason whatsoever to use Netscape. It’s awful. The "website rating" security device is performed far far better with tools like Netcraft or Spoofstick toolbar. The only reason it has more press than Maxthon or Deepnet is because of its brand recognition.

  24. Anonymous says:

    "People want a browser which shows their pages."

    And, as has been said time and time again, "militant" webmasters want to do their page ONCE, and have it display properly on a variety of platforms, be it IE, Mozilla, mobile devices, etc, and standards are the way to allow this.

  25. Anonymous says:

    You may set read-only for:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension regkey

  26. Anonymous says:

    @snowkinght

    Unfortunately browsing an xml file of a reasonably large size in Gecko is cripplingly slow compared to IE.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Anyone know why Netscape did this? It doesn’t make much sense, anyone who has to uninstall Netscape 8 should give Firefox a try – it’s better anyway ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Chloe:

    Link prefetching does not violate any standards:

    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Link_Prefetching_FAQ.html#Is_link_prefetching_standards_compliant

    Also the W3C states http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links

    "Refers to the next document in a linear sequence of documents. User agents may choose to preload the "next" document, to reduce the perceived load time."

  28. Anonymous says:

    Will IE7 have better RSS support? I suggest a setup like Safari RSS (Macintosh) to make RSS pages more useful

  29. Anonymous says:

    > Chloe : "Firefox is bloated because it eats memory like no tomorrow, and then refuses to release it."

    This issue will be corrected in next releases.

    > "I really hope IE doesn’t implement SVG natively"

    I really hope IE7 implements SVG (like Opera 8, and future version of FF). We don’t need proprietary stuff like Flash. We need standards things built with XML : XHTML, SVG, MathML… We must be able to mix different languages in one page.

    And stop thinking that SVG is a bloated technology : Opera implements SVG-lite which is not bloated…

    > "It’s time for MS to impose their authority. "

    Hey, we’re in 2005 : we need open-source, cross-plateform technologies. We don’t need another monopoly…

    > "Realise this: no-one in the ‘real world’ outside militant webmasters cares about standards."

    Wrong : Real web-developpers cares about standards.

    Hmmm. I would like to know your job. Are you a web-developper ?

  30. Anonymous says:

    > And Mozilla are more than happy to ’embrace and extend’ – think of ‘moz-‘ in CSS.

    The same could be said for IE, except it’s impossible to tell MS’s proprietary extensions apart from legitimate CSS since they don’t bother to put a prefix on their names, unlike Mozilla and Opera and KHTML and _every other browser using extensions to CSS_.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I don’t believe anyone has mentioned this, which strikes me as odd… but anyhow, XML was meant to be displayed with a style language, & thus should degrade to a jumble of strings, no tags displayed.

    I know from experience that IE shows the XML in a tree, & so do Gecko browsers – so here’s my query:

    Does IE render XML properly when it /is/ given a stylesheet? Or does it still treat it like pure data, not as a /markup/ language?

  32. Anonymous says:

    What I’d really like to see the IE team doing would be a regular progress report like this http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/

    It lists what changes have been made to the most recent development version of Firefox (Deer Park) and what bugs and regressions are still outstanding.

    It’d be interesting1 to see what progress the IE team is making.

    Of course as IE is not open source we’d not expect to see links to the Microsoft bug database and would understand if they didn’t want to mention any secret features but it’d be good to see the daily progress made on standards compliance, security and features you’ve already revealed (e.g. tabs)

  33. Anonymous says:

    Chloe: So nobody cares about standards except web developers? They just want something to display their web pages? How exactly would any browser do that without any standards? Every browser would use proprietary tags etc and nothing would in anything but a single browser. Standards are there for a reason, by following standards it’s far easier to create an accessible website because I know what supports particular parts of the standard and what doesn’t I can code appropriately to make sure code works in everything.

    And for the XML bug, pfft, just another bug…it’s software what else should we expect ๐Ÿ˜‰

  34. Anonymous says:

    To Aidan Walsh, prodebd:

    Standards are ridiculously overengineered. Who seriously believes in the semantic web?

    Even widespread standards don’t actually work – they always have leaks in their specs. No two implementations will be the same, and if developers are forced to run to the W3C every time they have a question no-one would get anything done.

    Therefore there is no way to be sure of cross-browser compatibility without testing your pages in all browsers. The job of web developers is made harder by having to cater to multiple browsers.

    To FlorentG:

    This issue will be corrected in next releases?

    And Longhorn will be ship on time. Where is your evidence?

    Opera uses SVG-Tiny so it’s not bloat?

    Irrespective of the complete lack of logic you demonstrate in making your point, Opera is the most bloated browser in existence. It appeals only to the savvy and will never escape its niche on desktops. SVG tries to reinvent the wheel and should learn from the failure of VML.

    As for ‘open source, cross platform’ – why would Microsoft do this? People here seem to be completely oblivious to the way business works! Why would MS make it easy to migrate away? From their point of view, the greater the lock-in the better! Firefox is easy to migrate to which is why they have been forced to offer IE7 for XP. Incompatibility with standards is a GOOD thing from Microsoft’s point of view, however good the standards may be. They have the monopoly, so others are forced to follow, which gives them greater flexibility.

    Fortunately I trust Microsoft to base their decisions firmly on economic principles rather than idealism.

    Yes, I am a web developer, amongst other things.

  35. Anonymous says:

    You had better be careful because I have IE on Windows XP with SP 2 and the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/rss.xml works just fine for me in Avant browser or IE (which I admit to never using except for browsing the Windows update or Office update sites), Firefox 1.04, Netscape 7.2, or Netscape 8.01 using Display like Firefox or Display like Internet Explorer. You seem to have reported a problem that does not affect everyone using Netscape 8.

  36. Anonymous says:

    "Therefore there is no way to be sure of cross-browser compatibility without testing your pages in all browsers. The job of web developers is made harder by having to cater to multiple browsers."

    Of course it’s made harder. Most of my time goes to catering for IE – if I could only design for Gecko browsers I’d be much quicker. But that’s life. So the point of a generic standard is that you can minimise the time taken to build cross browser compatible websites. The only alternative is to ubild for a single browser, which doesn’t appeal to me – besides, my company wouldn’t let me.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Seems to me reason enough to not touch ns8. <a href="http://mozilla.org">Firefox</a&gt; is much much more friendly. Firefox is just more trust worthy then netscape and of course much much more secure then IE.

  38. Anonymous says:

    But Chloe, for once leave the economic reason aside.

    As a Web developer, don’t you wish that you focus solely on creating a presentable user experience, rather than worrying and adding knick-knacks for each particular browser??

    It was certainly this logic that lead us to standards in first place.

    Their implementation and embracement by Microsoft will go a long way in making better web-pages.

    All we ask is to give us the bare minimum tools (CSS2, XHTML) applicable the same way in all the browsers. This update is necessary in IE as Web-development is also evolving with time and progress of computing.

    Embracing the standards and new techonologies will give flexibility in the hands of developers and a lay home-page creator equally.

    What we are really complaining about is that IE is taking awfully long to embrace the new technologies thus actually impeding the development of WWW.

  39. Anonymous says:

    i am glad that this has happened to ie..i dont care if it was intentional or an accident.

    "Realise this: no-one in the ‘real world’ outside militant webmasters cares about standards"

    you do realise that these ‘militant webmasters’ care about standards for you all?, they care that their site works in all browsers on all platforms, they could (like some pathetic designers) just build their for internet explorer, but no. they spend about 5 hours fixing an error that should not even be an error, what browser is the error on always? internet explorer.

    remember, standards are to there to give you the best internet experience possible, and that same experience to be availible on multiple browsers/platforms.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Fred Greg: Yes, if an XML document is styled with CSS or XSLT, Internet Explorer will display it styled.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Standards are a great starting point, but this war between the "new XML/XHTML standards" and the "old HTML way" is stupid. XHTML has just made webmasters learn a new set of hacks and workarounds for all of the buggy implementations of CSS/CSS2 in a dozen different browser versions. That’s standards for you. So instead of focusing time and effort on creating new content and design websites for users, I have to spend twice the amount of time learning new hacks and new work-arounds since my old knowledge and experience is replaced by shiny, brand-new standards. (Remember, HTML 3.0 was a perfectly good standard for it’s time and still renders beautifully in all modern browsers.)

    The nice thing is that in the real world, most webmasters don’t code to the current standards because they know such standards will always be a moving target. The argument that the old ways will go away in newer browsers just hasn’t happened (heck, even the infamous blink tag still works in Mozilla!) and, you know what, it never will. Old standards will be supported as long as there is a significant base of "old" users (which is another good decade of MSIE 6.x).

    So quit already with the standards war. Nobody is listening who cares.

  42. Anonymous says:

    And in other news, Coke tells users to not drink Pepsi.

    Shocking!

  43. Anonymous says:

    I came up with a way of dealing with IE not rendering pages correctly. Just ignore it and suggest Firefox to people coming to my site.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Al instalar el nuevo Netscape 8 puede suceder (como ha sido mi caso con un Windows XP) que Internet Explorer deje de visualizar documentos XML &amp;#8212;como los feeds RSS. En IEBlog cuentan la soluci&amp;#243;n en dos pasos y el primero…

  45. Anonymous says:

    Appearently, there has come to light a small issue with Netscape 8 and the fact that is installs a wrapper…

  46. Anonymous says:

    Chloe wrote:

    > As for ‘open source, cross platform’ – why

    > would Microsoft do this? People here seem to

    > be completely oblivious to the way business

    > works! Why would MS make it easy to migrate

    > away? From their point of view, the greater

    > the lock-in the better! Firefox is easy to

    > migrate to which is why they have been forced

    > to offer IE7 for XP. Incompatibility with

    > standards is a GOOD thing from Microsoft’s

    > point of view, however good the standards may

    > be. They have the monopoly, so others are

    > forced to follow, which gives them greater

    > flexibility.

    See:

    http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000052.html

    Quotation from that article, which discusses how Excel overcame Lotus 123’s huge advantage in installed base and network effects that came from that:

    > The best way to eliminate people’s

    > objections to switching to your product is

    > to make it easy to switch back. Nobody

    > wants to switch to a product that is going

    > to eliminate their freedom in the future.



    David W. Fenton

    David Fenton Associates

    http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc/

  47. Anonymous says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Plugins branch within the registry the CORRECT place for applications to extend IE’s functionality? If I have an application that handles a particular document type, and I want to expose my new features through IE, wouldn’t I HAVE to specify that in the registry in this location?

    Is it possible that Netscape decided that their browser had XML support that users might want to take advantage of, and (with or without the user’s consent), registered that capability with IE using its standard plugin/extension mechanism?

    Now, I’m perfectly willing to go along with the suggestion that a Netscape bug caused IE to misbehave here, but it’s a whopper of an assumption to suggest that Netscape had no business doing this to begin with, or that it was remotely a malicious thing. It seems to me that Netscape was simply trying to register itself as an XML-handling application for IE, but it was buggy, so it failed to render anything.

    Is there something else here that suggests Netscape was actually in the wrong here? I realize there are lots of "Microsoft is good, Netscape is bad" folks reading MSDN blogs, but let’s base our snide remarks on actual facts, yah?

  48. Anonymous says:

    "If you wanted to "secure" the registry to prevent Netscape from writing to the IE portion, you’d have to run IE from a different account (different "token") than Netscape — that way IE could access its portion and Netscape could access its portion."

    Since the the key in question here is in the HKLM branch, that won’t make any difference. And it indeed raises the question why the key is in the HKLM branch, and why it is apparently writable for ordinary user accounts. And if you can put ACLs on registry keys, why does nobody, not even Microsoft, do that?

  49. Anonymous says:

    Some black eyes on MS part…relating to Netscape

    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-820227.html

    http://www.computerworld.com/news/2000/story/0,11280,43878,00.html

    http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/01/08/news8.html

    Oh, and that security hole in netscape? A fix was released within a day. Not that it matters — Who would bother with netscape when firefox is avaliable? Hey Microsoft uses it:

    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART/825/507.html

    …but refuses to admit that even though it’s obviously true.

    Microsoft also recommend using firefox instead of IE!

    http://www.wi-fitechnology.com/displayarticle1294.html

  50. Anonymous says:

    > Opera is the most bloated browser in existence. It appeals only to the savvy and will never escape its niche on desktops.

    Opera’s main market is mobile phones and handhelds, and the reality is it does quite well in that market.

    Also, if Opera is the most bloated browser in existence as you seem to think it is, how do you explain the IE6 installation download (or its SP1 for that matter) being 9-73MB bigger? Yes that’s right, IE6 SP1 is 11MB at a bare minimum according to MS’s own information.

    I’m no Opera fan myself, but maybe you should "Get the Facts" before making wild accusations.

  51. Anonymous says:

    David,

    When you install an alternate browser, you don’t expect the "all your browser are belong to us" treatment. If I install NS8 alongside IE6, it’s because I want to test in both. It does me no good if NS8 sticks its fingers in IE6 and makes its rendering the rendering for both.

  52. Anonymous says:

    isnt the bottom line here, shouldnt have netscape made sure their browser worked in IE, afterall they using the core engine for rendering..

    but the bugs dont stop there… after about 10 tabs ..new tabs start to become invisible ..i think netscape pushed it out the door and need to come up with a fix.. i have noticed a couple other bugs also..

    and at first i was enjoying netscape after years of not using them ..because of its limitations

  53. Anonymous says:

    Regarding all the Friefox bashing:

    Fine, there’s a memeory hole. So there’s stuff that needs to be worked out. But IE is at version 6.whatever; Firefox is at 1.0.4. Give it time. MS has been at it for like 10 years and they still can’t get a decent browser out to the world. Obviously IE7 will be better than 6, but I’m confident Firefox 2 will be better and less buggy than 1.0.

  54. Anonymous says:

    ok so i went over to netscape to see what they had to say and after a small debate, netscape admits its their fault and the bug exist..

    "We apologize for the inconvenience that this bug has caused you. This certainly isn’t desired behavior and we didn’t even intentionally change that registry key. The development team is hard at work on a patch.

    Thanks,

    Netscape Product"

    source: http://community.netscape.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=7&tid=1878&webtag=ws-nscpbrowser

  55. Anonymous says:

    Have you ever had one of those &quot;moments&quot; when you have literally dug so deep down into your mind to try and solve a problem that you literally have reached the point where there is simply nothing left to search…

  56. Anonymous says:

    Have you ever had one of those &quot;moments&quot; when you have literally dug so deep down into your mind to try and solve a problem that you literally have reached the point where there is simply nothing left to search…

  57. Anonymous says:

    Netscape 8ใฎๅฐŽๅ…ฅใงIEใซไธๅ…ทๅˆ Netscapeใฎๆœ€ๆ–ฐ็‰ˆใ‚’ใ‚คใƒณใ‚นใƒˆใƒผใƒซ…

  58. Anonymous says:

    I have been having so much trouble with IE lately. Pages load so slowly that they often time out and I have to refresh repeatedly to get them. At one point IE would not even access the net, although e-mail and program updates that didn’t use IE worked fine. I had to install Netscape to get internet access. (I had an old install package in my download directory.) I haven’t yet noticed blank pages in IE (which I am using at this moment) since installing Netscape, but if I do, I guess it will be IE that I remove.

    I have lots of mal-ware programs installed and running (see my blog at http://techrepublic.com.com/5254-6257-0.html?forumID=99&threadID=174658&messageID=1776612&id=3467541 ). I recently re-installed XP and SP 2, and everything is updated to the hilt, including IE.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Well after a Netscape finally released their v8.0 browser, they released an update to fix a security…

  60. Anonymous says:

    Well apparently Netscape makes some other modifications because I removed the registry entries noted above and locked their permissions so they wouldn’t be recreated. I then tried the page in Internet Explorer and it would not work. It only started working after I uninstalled Netscape 8.0.1 so there must be more to it then the registry entries listed above.

  61. Anonymous says:

    Notice it doesnt effect Firefox? Make the switch today. http://www.mozilla.org

  62. Anonymous says:

    Chloe – I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’ve been writing about the issues raised by militant web standards evangelism since last year:

    "W3C uses CSS3 to bash IE":

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=5089

    "The tyranny of standards":

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4886

    "hypocricy laid bare – the proprietary document object model":

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4753

    "W3C is dead":

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4697

    Note that I wrote these almost a year ago when Firefox was just kicking off, so they may seem a little out-of-date. I think the points are still valid

  63. Anonymous says:

    I note a few comments from Pro MS supporter about maintaining standards and I am aware that MS try to enforce their products with none standard functions as a standard (frontpage). It also reminds me of how MS said IE could not be seperated from windows and yet it was proved wrong. I don’t use Netscape and don’t have any intention to because I am use to using the benefits that firefox and mozilla provide. Complain as you will about these other browsers but the less we are dependant on one vendor the less likley we will have to pay for a new GUI and a few extra tidbits to show they did something for 12 months and in doing so make us pay a hefty price for an update that 99% of users will never use.

    If you say well don’t upgrade if you don’t need it, is rediculous and narrow minded for when I need to access someone elses file that uses the newer version.

    I wouldn’t care if IE made me a cup of coffee or answered my phone, the alternative is the preferred option. When the opportunity to play with Linux comes I will move as far as possible away from Microsoft as I can.

    I am glad I am one of many who has the intention of making MS work for it’s money. Have you ever tried to close IE when MSN is open? It won’t let me. Why? Because it states an application that uses it is still open. Not only that but I don’t use IE and yet my startup list often shows I have done so and on several occassions. The more you support MS and its devious methods of snaring you the more insane it will get.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Q: How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: None. Its a hardware problem.

    Q: How many MS programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: None. They change the ‘standard’ to darkness.

    MS is in business to make money. Period. That is what a business is in business to do.

    MS just happens to worked hard and long to place itself into the position of forcing everyone else to play catch up in a rigged game.

    Could MS do better? Sure. They won’t untill there is a financial reason for them to do so.

    Security, they just don’t get it. I should be able to control what processes access what resources. An app should be able to ‘own’ its own sub branch in the registry.

    I won’t even start on the whole ActiveX issue, or overly powerfull scripting languages like VBA that support scripts embeded within documents.

  65. Anonymous says:

    I checked on my machine — Windows XP home edition;Service pack 2, Internet explorer 6.0.2900, Netscape Navigator Version 8; 0.9.6, FireFox Version 1.0.3.

    I do not seem to have the problem listed here.

    Dave can you kindly specify the configuration that is effected by this netscape issue.

    regards

    shantanu@myworld-myrules.com

  66. Anonymous says:

    @robin

    That still doesn’t explain why Netscape would need to set one of its dlls as a plugin for IE.

    @Everyone who says SVG isn’t bloated

    If SVG 1.2 isn’t bloated, then why does it contain a "File Upload" section and a "Persistent Client-side Data storage" section? Does Scalable Vector Graphics really need them to be a proper *graphics* standard? It reminds me of the old Netscape/Mozilla mindset before Firefox got started.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/api.html#fileupload

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/api.html#persistent-client-data

  67. Anonymous says:

    Chris Beach and Chloe, you have my full agreement. It’s nice to see others out there that recognize Netscape for what it is – a sad, horribly mutated, utterly irrelevant product of uncoordinated development and misguided convictions – and that recognize Internet Explorer for what *it* is – a remarkable piece of software that sets advanced browsing standards for an entire world, continues to further open up a global network to the public, and is the clear leader in innovations that really matter.

    Chris, your articles on the truth about web standards, and the misinformation and misperceptions regarding Microsoft and IE that are bandied about so frequently, are a breath of fresh air.

  68. Anonymous says:

    Netscape breaks IE’s XML Rendering

  69. Anonymous says:

    re my comment above:

    It turns out I am using Netscape 6. I guess some of my download files are a bit out of date. But maybe that’s a good thing. At least I had something available that worked when I needed it. In any case I followed the links to Mozilla and downloaded the packages for Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird for both Windows and Linux. They are not installed yet, but are available in case of trouble.

  70. Anonymous says:

    I have the problem of a blank ie when viewing xml

    but i have nothing under the extension key is the xml sub key any where else?

  71. Anonymous says:

    Hey guys one of my pc at home has this similar problem of having a blank page when accessing some site particularly hotmail, yahoo mail, some microsoft page and windows update and some forum sites. but other secure site like banking w/c uses Java dont seem to have a problem… And here’s the catch! there are no other browser installed on that machine just plain old IE and the machine OS is WIN XP with SP 2 with all the latest hotfix! Any idea guys? I heard from others they have the same issue also! pls do email me at albert_ri@yahoo.com if you have some solutions cheers!

  72. Anonymous says:

    snowknight wrote :

    "If SVG 1.2 isn’t bloated, then why does it contain a "File Upload" section and a "Persistent Client-side Data storage" section?"

    This is because SVG is not only a graphic-description language, it defines also a complete set of API to create graphics-based Application.

    Moreover, SVG 1.2 adds stuff that was requested by the community. So some people may have asked a file upload API…

    And remember that it is just a Working Draft… So it may disappear in when it will be released as a recommandation.

  73. Anonymous says:

    Quote: and that recognize Internet Explorer for what *it* is – a remarkable piece of software that sets advanced browsing standards for an entire world, continues to further open up a global network to the public, and is the clear leader in innovations that really matter.

    Sorry, could you explain to me what "innovations" IE had the last years and since when does Microsoft "set advanced browsing standards"?

    Surely you must be kidding when you say "is the clear leader in innovations that really matter". Sorry, but IE6 hasn’t had ANY innovations in years. Just now, when other browser (who do have innovations) are becoming more popular, they start working on IE again (after years of doing nothing).

    Sorry, I’m not a real anti-IE person, but these comments just are wrong.

  74. Anonymous says:

    And this is the reason why I use Fedora Core 3 or MacOS Tiger…

  75. Anonymous says:

    Where in the original post on this subject does it state that the registry key is rewritten /by Netscape/?

  76. Anonymous says:

    Avoiding the (needless) personal insults that are already being thrown around here, here’s my take on the matter:

    Without standards, and a *good* base of standards at that, the WWW would not exist at all. Neither the original Netscape, or IE can claim to have done *anyone* any favours by implementing proprietry extensions and forcing their use, however it is the case that the standards procedure is slow, lethargic and prone to a "committee" attitude. We wouldn’t be where we are now without the original Netscape and the other early browsers adding extra functionality to the existing standards. It’s just a shame about the awful way most of these extenstions were implemented.

    As for developing for IE, Netscape, Opera, etc. I can safely say that the single most frustrating point in web development is the hopelessly buggy layout (CSS) support in IE. I’m not saying that Mozilla, Firefox, etc also don’t have their CSS bugs, it’s just that IEs are many more and worse. I’m not even going to start on MS’s implementation of JavaScript, which is "interesting" to say least, except that it’s not the only implementation with "interesting" features, it’s just that some of it’s slackness critically effects lots of code (interchangeable bracket types, for instance).

    The end result, is that we *MUST* have multiple browsers for the market to not remain stagnant, bloated and unstable / vulnerable. If there weren’t (finally) some decent competitiors to IE, you can bet that MS would not have decided to retro-fit IE7 into XP.

    Oh, and onto the brief subject of NS8’s interface – I’ve hated it and always have (this includes all of the previous versions of Netscape too). Mozilla is a much better browser but I still hate where it’s taken the interface elements from Netscape.

  77. Anonymous says:

    Interesting bug, but well, after IE releases breaking applications, some applications were bound to break IE ^_^

  78. Anonymous says:

    1. Start/run/regedit

    2. Move following key.

    HKLMSOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension

    3. delete sub key, .xml

    4. Move following key.

    HKLMSOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionApp Paths

    5. delete sub key, Netscape.exe

    Both Netscape and MSIE operates well.

  79. Anonymous says:

    I found another workaround that allows you to keep using Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer with full XML/XSLT rendering.

    1. Close all instances of Internet Explorer and NS8.

    2. Goto C:Program FilesNetscapeNetscape Browserplugins (or to whatever directory that you’ve installed NS8 to) and rename the npTrident.dll file to npTrident.dll.bku.

    3. Remove the .xml node from the Registry as specified at the top of this thread.

    4. NS8 can still be used and IE will now render XML/XSLT properly. However, all functions provided by the Trident plugin will no longer work. This breaks NS8’s own XML/XSLT rendering, among other things, but this can be overriden by using the Firefox engine in NS8 to render it instead.

    It is working for me, and so far has broken nothing else that I use apart from XML (which is fixable as stated by using Firefox).

    Hope that this helps. ^)^

  80. Anonymous says:

    Well this takes the biscuit, doesn’t it? I mean, let’s face it – Microsoft are constantly being accused of dirty tactics and all that kind of nonsense. Here’s a clear case of an application invading another’s turf. I say Microsoft should cull them!

    (OK, not that extreme, but something must be done. Keep up the good work MS.)

  81. Anonymous says:

    Chloe: "Firefox is bloated because it eats memory like no tomorrow, and then refuses to release it."

    What, unlike Internet Explorer???!?

  82. Anonymous says:

    Phil asked, "How do I unstall IE? and windoze? And use linux as my main os with firefox and openoffice?"

    Simply download the Fedora Core 4 DVD image, burn to a DVD, insert into your DVD drive and reboot and follow the very simple on-screen instructions. That is all.

  83. Anonymous says:

    Hey I have a similar problem:

    I Installed Netscape8, had problems and then unistall it

    Later I reinstall SP1 for IE6 and MSXML4

    Now I can’t see XML files without this heading

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

    At least adding this line I can see the file…

    Yours

    Joe

  84. Anonymous says:

    I hope all you "standards" supporters reliaze that most of your precious web standards were adopted from already long existing features in IE and the former Netscape and then renamed and fudged by the W3C usually breaking something in the process. In other words, your precious "standards" are non-standard; the standard was chosen long ago by the comsumers.

  85. Anonymous says:

    FlorentG Said:"Real web-developpers cares about standards."

    It would be nice if IE, NS, Opera, FF, etc., would ALL meet the _basic_ W3 standards.

    I have yet to find any web site that is enhanced using Flash (all Macromedia), JAVA, or anyother "add-ons."

    Developers need to remember that not ALL visitors to their web site have high-speed connections. In fact, most don’t.

    HTML is for basic communications and display, all the other is superfluous. KISS!

    The web is so bloated with _junk_, it’s lost its usefulness.

  86. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft’s Dave Massy, the senior program manager for IE, has warned&amp;nbsp;Internet Explorer&amp;nbsp;users that Netscape’s 8.0 browser can cause a conflict with Microsoft’s browser Internet Explorer.&amp;nbsp; This may be another setback for the new &quot;security&quot; Netscape 8.0.&amp;nbsp; The browser had immediate…

  87. Anonymous says:

    Definitely some strong opinions here. Of course, this is why we have five major browsers available!

    For what it’s worth, the advantage of any version of Netscape over an installation of IE is the reversablility. Not only can I run multiple versions of Netscape on the same system, I can uninstall any of them. Registry cleanup obviously needs some work here, but it appears that not everyone is affected anyway. Microsoft seems incapable or unwilling to allow a return path from browser upgrades. It makes no sense to force users to reformat a hard drive just to get back to the previous state.

    Both Netscape and IE have some useful features unavailable in the other offering. If I could get IE to render pages as fast as Netscape, perhaps I would have switched by now. I have tried every new version of IE when it came out and have always returned to Netscape. I can’t use tabs or get a page to stop loading in IE. I can’t get real JAVA (that means multi platform) to work. Settings are buried so deep and some aren’t available at all, or are undocumented. The PDF plug in rarely works as well as the one in Netscape (should I blame Adobe?) The Outlook/Exchange remote interface actually works better in Netscape! I am glad to see that some folks are able to use IE for something useful.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Maybe it will be the easiest way,

    but is it really necessary to uninstall Netscape8 ?

    I think there is another way…

    Open your regedt32.exe,

    And modify security settings to protect from rewriting the registry key.

    …For one thing, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is not be able to rewrite on "Users" group.

  89. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t it easier to forget about IE instead of:

    1 – uninstalling netscape.

    2 – waiting for the updated version

    3 – reinstalling netscape

  90. Anonymous says:

    Hmmmm. Seems to me that this sound vaguely familiar, only with MS apps were breaking software from other vendors (and Microsoft turning a deaf ear). Does anyone recall the chant, "DOS isn’t done, ’till Lotus wont run."?

  91. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for the update. I’ve had a few people complain already. I’m glad theirs a solution.

  92. Anonymous says:

    > Chloe : "Firefox is bloated because it eats memory like no tomorrow, and then refuses to release it."

    I’d suggest fixing your computer or upgrading it, because if Firefox eats more RAM on your computer than IE6, your computer is f$%*ed up. Period.

    IE eats at least double the resources that Firefox does.

    (HTP4 3.0, 1gig PC3200 RAM, XP Pro SP2 slipstream install, Firefox 1.4)

    Hell even when Firefox was a .7 BETA it still ate less resources than IE6.

    Fix your computer.

  93. Anonymous says:

    " Does anyone recall the chant, "DOS isn’t done, ’till Lotus wont run."? "

    LOL, yep! ๐Ÿ™‚

    All the bickering about standards and such is ridiculous. I’ve been a web developer for going on 12 years now and frankly I wish for one thing only.

    A Winner. True standards compliance will only come when people accept the fact that the largest market share *must* be the standard. Why? Because it’s ridiculous to design for 2% of the browsers, or 5% or whatever. Working between MSIE and Firefox reminds me of the days when it was working withing the AOL framework as well as normal IE and netscape. 0 compliance and absolutely no consideration that one of them had 90% of the market share.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the technological advances that have come out of the W3C as well as emerging advances with SVG and Ajax. But frankly the *frequent* XHTML specification changes and other spec changes seems a lot like a bunch of people with no commercial interest "pie in the sky"ing things.

    Just my 2 cents

  94. Anonymous says:

    It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Seriously, a third party app not working with Windows. I’m shocked. SHOCKED I say.

    I guess I’ll just keep using linux for a few more years.

  95. Anonymous says:

    Can anyone verify that it is a plain jane default build of Netscape 8 breaking IE and not a plugin of Netscape?

  96. Anonymous says:

    [Sarcastic] The next thing Microsoft will be doing is asking people to uninstall Firefox since it is posing a considerable amount of problems to I.E.’s diminishing market share. [/Sarcastic]

  97. Anonymous says:

    [Sarcastic] The next thing Microsoft will be doing is asking people to uninstall Firefox since it is posing a considerable amount of problems to I.E.’s diminishing market share. [/Sarcastic]

  98. Anonymous says:

    Quote from Chloe:

    "Yes, it uses Trident underneath, but it’s a fully fledged app, not a plugin."

    All I have to say is check the registry at the location this article describes.. you will find:

    "C:Program FilesNetscapeNetscape BrowserPLUGINSnpTrident.dll"

    Not a plugin? uh-huh.

    Long Live IE, Death to Netscape/Mozilla

    -Rob

  99. Anonymous says:

    Or just set the permission of `HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension` to read-only so when NetScape tries to rw-write the registry entries, the operationg system will not allow that to happen.

    Netscape should not constantly re-write and `grab` control of something. Same goes with IE and any other program. What’s happened here is a sign of bas coding and no consideration for the user’s wishes.

  100. Anonymous says:

    Hahaha. SO I install Netscape. Then IE doesn’t work properly? SO WHAT!!! THats why I install Netscape, so I don’t have to use your rubbish browser. Even better – UNINSTALL IE. And you can!!!

  101. Anonymous says:

    Wow, its amazing how to fix a problem Microsoft tells you to uninstall Netscape. That’s like like getting a new DVD player for your tv, and then one button on the remote control for the TV isn’t working, and the TV manufacturer calls for you to return your DVD player and use their model.

    That’s one good marketing strategy, but of course microsoft is known for these. It’s amazing that Microsoft beats the competition, NOT by having the best technology, but simply by advertising and domination of the market.

    But, I think that’s all going to change soon. More and more people will be using linux (if you want to switch download a FREE linux, I suggest mandrake, from http://distrowatch.com/). IN LINUX, YOU CANNOT GET VIRUSES OR SPYWARE! All the programs for Linux are free!

    To install a program you simply type "urpmi netscape". And that’s it! No double clicking, no clicking next, the recommendedn install. You only type two words "urpmi netscape"

  102. Anonymous says:

    @Those that want Microsoft to win and lock you in tight:

    I guess its a good business case for them when you look at the kinds of fines and redevelopment costs they suffer in Europe. ;p

    @Those that prefer Flash over SVG:

    I can write SVG in your Microsoft provided notepad. Can you write Flash in it?

    @IE6 XML Engine

    I still remember how MS implemented an incomplete, customized, non-standardized version of XSL back in the day that didn’t even cover half the spectrum of the XSLT specification. Since then I’ve avoided XML+XSLT natively in IE. Who cares. You guys jaded me for good in that one.

    However…

    @Netscape 8 adding the registry setting

    I wonder why they did this? I’d really like to see an explanation. Having your app add registry values to other applications registry settings sounds like spyware/malware to me…

  103. Anonymous says:

    Problem solved….use *nix

  104. Anonymous says:

    I have NS 8 and the link here works, as well as another feed I tried. I don’t think this is an issue for everyone, a few people have commented here that theirs is working fine as well.

  105. Anonymous says:

    zero2dash wrote:

    >I’d suggest fixing your computer or upgrading it, because if Firefox eats more RAM on your computer than IE6, your computer is f$%*ed up.

    Do you suggest "buying a new refrigerator, because in the old one there is no room a newer bucket of sh*t"?

    (I prefer using Opera.

    It sucks, too, but in a different way. ^_^)

  106. Anonymous says:

    >@Those that prefer Flash over SVG:

    >I can write SVG in your Microsoft provided notepad. Can you write Flash in it?

    Indeed, all I have to do is write and compile, same way you write C in Vi. Flash MX is hardly required.

    >IN LINUX, YOU CANNOT GET VIRUSES OR SPYWARE! All the programs for Linux are free!

    ahahahahaahaha. You’ll have to tell me how the land of delusion is this time of year, it sounds like a nice vacation.

    ————-

    It was either an error of judgement for NS to do this, or more likely an error of testing, since it doesn’t seem to effect everyone. Cool that you’re working together to fix it. =D

  107. Anonymous says:

    Hey everyone, how’s the kool-aid?

  108. Anonymous says:

    Chloe,

    > It’s obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which, there will be no compelling reason to use it.

    The fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t run on many platforms is pretty compelling. What would you suggest I do? Switch platforms? Load up an emulator every time I want to surf the web?

    > Instead of using Flash which is installed on 97% of computers they insist on implementing SVG.

    Flash already works in Firefox.

    > How many pages do you know of that use VML, let alone SVG?

    That’s like saying nobody wants flying cars because "how many people use flying cars?" Obviously very few people use VML and SVG because browser support is so scarce. If I knew a decent amount of people would be able to see SVG, I’d use it all the time.

    > And Mozilla are more than happy to ’embrace and extend’ – think of ‘moz-‘ in CSS.

    You forgot the third ‘e’. The "embrace & extend" phrase originated in a Microsoft employee describing a strategy to embrace, extend and EXTINGUISH. So far I don’t see Mozilla taking an "extinguish" strategy towards CSS. How many people do you see saying "CSS is much less useful because of Mozilla"? How many people do you see saying "CSS is much less useful because of Internet Explorer"?

    Oh look, the very next comment illustrates the idea perfectly:

    > I’m tired of leaving out nifty features because they "only" work in Mozilla, Opera and Safari.

    See what I mean?

    > Firefox is bloated because it eats memory like no tomorrow, and then refuses to release it.

    Already fixed in the latest nightlies. As opposed to the well-documented Internet Explorer Javascript memory leaks which are getting on four years old without any fix in sight.

    http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html#clMem

    > no-one in the ‘real world’ outside militant webmasters cares about standards. They don’t care about corner cases like Acid2. People want a browser which shows their pages.

    Do you even understand the concept of interoperability and how specifications help to get browsers and documents that just work?

    > Standards are ridiculously overengineered. Who seriously believes in the semantic web?

    Which standards? You seem to be lumping the common "web standards" in with the semantic web. Some of the *semantic web* standards may be overengineered, but the common "web standards" are not. By conflating the two, you seem to be trying to confuse the matter.

    > The job of web developers is made harder by having to cater to multiple browsers.

    What’s your solution? A one browser web I suppose. The only alternative is standardising the code each browser uses, and you seem to be dead-set against that.

    > [Firefox memory leaks] will be corrected in next releases? And Longhorn will be ship on time. Where is your evidence?

    Feel free to download and verify the changes yourself:

    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/008227.html

    Dave Harris,

    > The argument that the old ways will go away in newer browsers just hasn’t happened

    This is untrue. Old ways have gone away frequently. For example, Netscape layers, table layouts, JSSSL, non-text/css CSS resources have all broken in newer browsers.

    > Old standards will be supported as long as there is a significant base of "old" users

    Great. So instead of running a validator to determine whether something is right, I have to take a survey to figure out how many people still use the feature.

    Chris Beach,

    > Note that I wrote these almost a year ago when Firefox was just kicking off, so they may seem a little out-of-date. I think the points are still valid

    I know you think you are playing devil’s advocate, but there is a difference between playing devil’s advocate and simply trolling.

    Playing devil’s advocate involves taking a controversial view in order to generate good-natured discussion.

    Trolling, on the other hand, is deliberately ignoring facts and logic to generate bad-natured arguments.

    Tell me, when you claim things like Mozilla being proprietary and hypocritical for implementing a draft CSS 3 property as -moz-opacity for testing purposes until the specification reaches candidate recommendation status – what do you think you are doing? Playing devil’s advocate, or trolling? It seems quite obviously on the troll side of the line to me.

    FlorentG,

    > This is because SVG is not only a graphic-description language, it defines also a complete set of API to create graphics-based Application.

    This is what makes SVG bloated. Most of the time, all you really need is a vector graphics format.

    SVG-Tiny, on the other hand, isn’t bloated and I would welcome support for it.

    > But frankly the *frequent* XHTML specification changes and other spec changes seems a lot like a bunch of people with no commercial interest "pie in the sky"ing things.

    Huh? What frequent XHTML specification changes?

    First, XHTML 1.0 was published in 2000.

    Then, later that year, it was updated to make minor clarifications to the language used – there were no changes to the XHTML language.

    Then XHTML 1.1 was published in 2001. No changes have been made to this specification.

    So by my count there has only ever been a single change to XHTML, the update from 1.0 to 1.1.

    As for "pie in the sky", CSS 2.1 was aimed at making CSS 2 more easily implementable and specified previously proprietary properties and values.

  109. Anonymous says:

    To call a complete uninstall a "work around" is a real stretch.

    If true this is only a problem if the user wants to go back to IE. If you want to go back to Firefox, its not a problem. And of course its not a problem if you’re happy with Netscape 8.

  110. Anonymous says:

    Remember when MS added an error to MS Windows that prevented it to run under DR DOS?

  111. Anonymous says:

    Netscape, Firefox, Opera, Arachne and many other PC-based browsers have no problem working together, yet IE does? Perhaps the problem isn’t Netscape. Oh, that’s right, Microsoft programs are perfect, don’t crash, and have no security holes. 9_9

    MS has long violated the standards accepted and set by the World Wide Web Consortium (www.w3.org). If Microsoft would design their browser and other products to follow these standards, there wouldn’t be a problem. Other companies can do it and make money, so why can’t microsoft?

  112. Anonymous says:

    Once again I get to say Hooray for Firefox!

  113. Anonymous says:

    What crap. Leave it to Micro$oft to go and claim problems w/ a rival browser. Mozilla is highly superior to IE anyway, why anyone wants Netscape is beyond me. BUt it’s a more likely choice over that dragon IE.

  114. Anonymous says:

    There are some pretty amsuing accusations in the comments to the stories on ZDNET and news.com. A number…

  115. Anonymous says:

    So if IE is bloated and greedy and Netscape tries to take over, IE has a breakdown and complains.

    getfirefox.com

    problem solved

  116. Anonymous says:

    regarding standards…

    back in the early 1980’s, a lack of interoperability was plaguing electronic music instrument manufacturers. they wanted a way for their devices to communicate though the instruments themselves were made up of differing types of proprietary hardware & software. The companies who made these instruments, large & small, got together & agreed to come up with a way to do this: a language, a device standard, a hardware standard. It was called the musical instrument digtal interface, or MIDI. it’s still being used today & it still works pretty well. every aspect of music technology has improved because of it.

    i am not a web developer. i am a musician. those of you who want to lash out at me for this, & say i am out of my depth for leveling a criticism on a topic i don’t understand, that’s fine. however, i think this makes my example more pertinent to this discussion, not less. all of you morons defending the market share of Microsoft as the end-all-be-all of who should define standards need to go back in history & take a little look at what cooperation & an honest adherance to standards can do.

    why does the world’s largest software manufacturer NEED help to stand in the way of technological progress? why do people defend them? i thought competition was good. Microsoft’s had a long day in the sun – why do their products seem to degrade rather than improve, or not appear when promised at all? is it perhaps because they have a corporate strategy that disavows progress? anyone who defends Microsoft for any reason is intellectually lazy slob. & for those of you who say "i can’t wait for MS to define the standards…" blah blah… are you stupid? they do! look where it’s gotten us.

  117. I thought I could stay out of this, but it seems that I can’t.

    The CSS 2 (and most of the 3) standards are not just fluff thought up to make browser programmers’ jobs hard. There are good reasons for the CSS properties that have been added, and just because the major browser doesn’t support them does not mean that everybody should sit still and never progress.

    There are too many USEFUL layouts that you cannot do without many of the CSS properties that Internet Explorer does not support. How do you do position: fixed, for example? Sure, javascript, but you shouldn’t rely on Javascript for layout, and doing so to simulate fixed causes a lag in updating the element’s position when scrolling (and makes me dizzy). And it’s only going to get worse. Right now, there’s now way to implement multiple dynamic columns, but W3C is working on a spec, and Firefox will get a rough implementation soon. But so what? The major player will not get support for it for at least 5 more years.

    And what about styling form controls? Right now, because IE doesn’t support all the CSS selectors, we cannot style the different types of INPUT elements without adding redundant classes and increasing the size of all pages with forms.

    Not to mention the rendering bugs, but at least it looks like those will be fixed, and when they are I’ll be very grateful.

    And why are standards not important, and yet both the MSN teams and ASP.NET teams have made attempts at meeting the XHTML standards? If everyone uses IE then why not code for IE, right?

    I’d like to see some good progress on the standards front. I’ve said it before, the standards-compliant layout engine (not the quirks mode one) needs to get regular updates to fix rendering bugs (possibly via Windows Update). People coding against the standards-compliant rendering mode will understand if their hacks to get a browser to work break after an update. Worst case scenario a user can use an alternate stylesheet and still view the content of the page. We should not have to wait 3 or 4 years for a new version to fix rendering bugs.

    Mind you, security should still be the #1 concern, but not the only concern.

    Anyway, keep up the good work. I used to love Internet Explorer, and I’d like to see some good competition in the market again.

  118. Anonymous says:

    Jim: "Trolling, on the other hand, is deliberately ignoring facts and logic to generate bad-natured arguments."

    Rather than admit you simply disagree with my point of view (which I have carefully explained), you accuse me of being a "troll". It’s clear who is the troll here.

    Jim: "Tell me, when you claim things like Mozilla being proprietary and hypocritical for implementing a draft CSS 3 property as -moz-opacity for testing purposes until the specification reaches candidate recommendation status – what do you think you are doing? Playing devil’s advocate, or trolling? It seems quite obviously on the troll side of the line to me."

    You can call it "testing the specification" or whatever you like. The fact is, Mozilla have implemented techniques before they have been finalised by the W3C. This is the same as what Microsoft have done with their filter classes. If you genuinely believe we should wait (years) for the W3C to finally release a standard, then you should admit that both Microsoft and Mozilla should have held back on their implementations.

  119. Anonymous says:

    TheMuuj: "And what about styling form controls? Right now, because IE doesn’t support all the CSS selectors, we cannot style the different types of INPUT elements without adding redundant classes and increasing the size of all pages with forms."

    Err hold on a minute. I for one have never had any problems styling form controls in IE. Other supposedly W3C-compliant browsers (eg Safari) have posed more of a problem.

  120. Anonymous says:

    So Netscape 8 "breaks" IE. Intended or not, it’s about time MS got a taste of it’s own tricks.

  121. What CSS selector do you use to style a Text box but not a Checkbox? Try putting a red border on INPUT and see how ugly your checkboxes look. If IE supported full CSS 2 selectors, you could apply a style to INPUT[type=’text’] and INPUT[type=’checkbox’].

    And don’t get me started on the styles themselves. IE ignores most styles for SELECT elements (border, etc.), and try making your textboxes 100% width (and line up with SELECT elements and TEXTAREA elements), playing with your padding, or adding a background image to a textbox. The only control that is hard to style in other browsers for me is the file upload control, and I admit the standard could use some clarification there.

  122. And I have no gripes about IE’s extra stuff. The filter property is great, because it lets you work around some holes, but I don’t think it needs to be in the standard. And until it is, I would have preferred IE to use -msie-filter instead to avoid poluting the future standard namespace.

    But there’s nothing wrong with embrace and extend, as long as you don’t eliminate. But in this case, IE could do a little more embracing before they worry about extending any more.

  123. Anonymous says:

    "And until it is, I would have preferred IE to use -msie-filter instead to avoid poluting the future standard namespace"

    I don’t understand why any of these prefixes are in any way helpful to the progress of standard adoption. If a company sets a standard, let it become defacto.

    In my opinion we don’t need -moz-XXX or -msie-XXX. These only serve to pollute the markup within early adopter websites. What we need is for one company just to set a final bloody standard! Anyone else getting bored of waiting years for the W3C to finalise CSS3? Anyone completely disillusioned of the ‘standards by committee’ approach?

    I say let the IE team come up with its own standards where necessary (as it has done before), and forget browser-specific namespaces. There’s no need to wait around for the W3C. There’s no need to fear ‘closed-door’ standards development. After all, we’re talking about published markup syntax here, not a rocket-science proprietary data format.

    Web standards evangelists – rather than venting your angst against IE, how about directing your rage towards the W3C and give them the kick up the arse required to release a coherent, complete version of CSS3 that everyone can adopt.

  124. Anonymous says:

    ehe.. microsoft fanboys are cool ๐Ÿ™‚

  125. Anonymous says:

    Two years ago it was proven that Megasloth was deliberately targeting Opera users, designing the MSN websites to be unusable and unreadable by Opera. If you changed a setting so that Opera identified itself as IE, the webpages worked fine.

    This is just another in a long line of cowardly, anticompetitive tactics by Megasloth. Instead of making a better product than the competition, they denigrate others and resort to the FUD factor: fear, uncertainty, doubt.

    Jeff Rose

    Microsoft Windows:

    32-bit extension and graphical shell to a

    16-bit patch to an

    8-bit operating system originally coded for a

    4-bit microprocessor which was written by a

    2-bit company that can’t stand

    one bit of competition

  126. Anonymous says:

    As per the instructions, I uninstalled Netscape 8.0 browser

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/05/25/421763.aspx

    I am unable to locate the node title "xml" after I navigated to

    "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension"

    Did I missed some thing or what?

  127. What if the syntax IE chooses for filter isn’t optimal for all browsers, or behaves in a way that is counter-intuitive, and when it gets standardized one little thing gets changed and it suddenly breaks a lot of sites. If it had been -msie-filter, the sites that used the old syntax would continue to work even after it becomes standardized, and other browsers may even choose to implement IE’s behavior. When it becomes part of the standard, developers could slowly move from "-msie-filter" to "filter" and make sure it behaves correctly.

    This is going to happen in Mozilla with -moz-border-radius, which is slightly different than the CSS3 border-radius. The -moz-border-radius property is use-at-your-own-risk but have fun making your site look cool now if you want.

    What’s worse, two browsers come up with a property at nearly the same time, but use entirely different syntax? Is the W3C supposed to try to come up with a syntax that supports both? What if they are completely incompatable? Who gets precedent?

  128. Anonymous says:

    > Rather than admit you simply disagree with my point of view (which I have carefully explained), you accuse me of being a "troll". It’s clear who is the troll here.

    It’s not that I disagree with your point of view, it’s that it’s based upon false and misleading points, and that you ignore relevent facts.

    > The fact is, Mozilla have implemented techniques before they have been finalised by the W3C. This is the same as what Microsoft have done with their filter classes.

    No, it is not. It is different in two very important ways.

    Firstly, Microsoft’s filter classes are not part of any CSS draft. Mozilla’s -moz-opacity property follows the opacity property in the CSS 3 color specification.

    There is a *major* difference between implementing something that is standard but not yet stable, and just implementing whatever you like.

    It might have escaped your attention, but opacity in particular is finished. The CSS 3 color module is at Candidate Recommendation stage, which means the W3C *want* people to implement it.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/#transparency

    Secondly, they follow the CSS rules for specifying vendor specific extensions. Microsoft do not, they pollute the CSS namespace by not prefixing their extensions.

    I have explained this to you before, and you persist in sticking your head in the sand, and continuing to make the same baseless claim that what the two organisations are doing is exactly the same.

    THAT is why you are a troll and not playing devil’s advocate.

    > If you genuinely believe we should wait (years) for the W3C to finally release a standard

    I do not, and no part of my argument rests on that. Straw men are another typical troll-like behaviour.

    > I don’t understand why any of these prefixes are in any way helpful to the progress of standard adoption. If a company sets a standard, let it become defacto.

    That’s exactly the problem. The W3C are effectively barred from creating a property called ‘filter’ that doesn’t work in exactly the same way as Microsoft dictates. What if the W3C comes up with a better implementation? Call it filter-even-better?

    > Web standards evangelists – rather than venting your angst against IE, how about directing your rage towards the W3C and give them the kick up the arse required to release a coherent, complete version of CSS3 that everyone can adopt.

    What’s the point? Internet Explorer hasn’t even come close to finishing 2.1 yet. Again, you criticise the W3C for being slow while ignoring the fact that Internet Explorer is a long way from catching up with the W3C.

    Oh, and many of the CSS 3 specifications are ready for implementing, not that this hasn’t been pointed out before.

  129. Anonymous says:

    Jim: "Internet Explorer hasn’t even come close to finishing 2.1 yet. Again, you criticise the W3C for being slow while ignoring the fact that Internet Explorer is a long way from catching up with the W3C."

    Firstly, IE7’s developers have come very close to finishing their implementation of CSS2, as you would know if you’d been reading this blog and others. As for 2.1, well that’s mainly bugfixes for the errors made by the W3C in CSS2.0.

    As for CSS3, why on earth should IE’s development team speed into implementing a standard that’s not even been decided on yet, let alone guaranteed error-free. The problem is that the W3C don’t release standards anymore when it comes to CSS. No browser will ever be CSS3-compliant because there really is no such thing as CSS3. There’s just tidbits of spec, dribbling out gradually. I hope you don’t think that the IE team should wait patiently for these fragments to emerge, hurriedly coding in each new feature at the beck and call of the W3C?

  130. Anonymous says:

    "Firstly, Microsoft’s filter classes are not part of any CSS draft. Mozilla’s -moz-opacity property follows the opacity property in the CSS 3 color specification."

    If "-moz-opacity" follows the CSS3 colour spec, then Mozilla should have called their behaviour ‘opacity’

    I can’t stand the thought of there being deliberately browser-specific markup at any stage of development.

    The W3C opacity property has no more merit than a similar filter class from Microsoft. Yet you would have MS hold back for several years in order to follow the W3C specification of few simple bits of syntax. That’s completely backward. I don’t care if the syntax of some property hasn’t been agreed by a giant burocratic think-tank. Just allow me to make an element transparent. I don’t care if you think MS is conspiring to make their standard the one and only. Maybe some developers like the idea of their being a single, quickly implemented standard, no matter whether it comes from an independent organisation or a corporation

    I’m fed up with people putting the reins on MS and then justifying it with daft conspiracy theories and general distrust. Let the company innovate on the web. The <10%-share browsers can fall into line, where they belong.

  131. Anonymous says:

    "Instead of using Flash which is installed on 97% of computers they insist on implementing SVG."

    Flash is a great commercial product, isn’t it? I wonder why some people aren’t content with just allowing Macromedia to own that part of the equation? SVG’s just some silly old spec that some old computer farts are working on somewhere. It’ll never go anywhere.

    I left Netscape behind forever right about the time v.4 was released. v.8?!? The mind boggles, hope springs eternal, and WTF?

  132. Anonymous says:

    "Flash is a great commercial product, isn’t it? I wonder why some people aren’t content with just allowing Macromedia to own that part of the equation? SVG’s just some silly old spec that some old computer farts are working on somewhere. It’ll never go anywhere"

    Your sarcasm is rather droll. Flash IS a great commercial product. It’s hardly likely that the open-source movement will be able to come up a web graphics IDE of the calibre of Macromedia’s effort.

    I like the fact that SWF’s are self contained. I dread to think what the markup of pages would be like if Flash content could somehow be intertwined with HTML, CSS and JavaScript. I dread to think what the performance would be like, too!

    I consider SVG to be an extension too far in the web-standards arena. There are reasons why such vector standards have not taken off in the many years they have existed.

    It seems the only reason you guys want to foist off a text-based Flash competitor is because you either don’t trust Macromedia, or Adobe (yikes, a big scary corporation!) or because you’re a cheapskate who doesn’t want to pay for good software.

  133. Anonymous says:

    Thank you. Now I have found a reason to install Netscape. I’m still gonna USE Firefox tho.

  134. "I’m fed up with people putting the reins on MS and then justifying it with daft conspiracy theories and general distrust. Let the company innovate on the web. The <10%-share browsers can fall into line, where they belong."

    When was the last time that IE innovated anything? Version 6. When was the last time IE added anything that somebody else innovated? Version 6.

    When did version 6 come out? Yeah. That’s everybody’s point.

    It’s not that IE 6 sucks (except for a few nasty bugs which make me pull my hair out). It’s that…it’s old…and getting older every day.

    Now look at the competition. They may not be truely innovating (that’s debatable), and borrow ideas from other places, but they’re moving in a direction that resembles forward.

    And I don’t care about CSS3. I *care* about CSS2/2.1. There’s a pretty good spec, and *most* of the browsers support it fairly decently, but we (web developers) can’t use it because the #1 browser doesn’t support it.

    And I still haven’t seen the IE team say there will be 100% CSS2 support. They mentioned bug fixes, and mentioned vaguely that work was being done.

    But I haven’t seen any list of what will be supported, such as ">" and "+" selctors, attribute selectors, extra pseudo-classes, "position: fixed", min/max-height/width. What about the nasty "height" bug where a container grows to its contents regardless of size?

    I need to know whether I will be able to treat IE7 as a good browser and give it complete stylesheets, or if I continue to treat it as a downlevel browser. It’s tempting to feed it no stylesheet like I would Netscape 4, but my clients wouldn’t like that.

    And to heck with CSS3. That can wait for IE 7.1/7.5/8.0. To heck with SVG (although it makes it easy to write resizable pages).

    I want CSS2. Period. And it looks like Windows XP users will get it. Well, good for Windows XP users.

    I already have it, on Windows 98, 2000, XP, and any other OS I can think of.

    If Dean Edwards can hack a lot of standards support into IE6, then Microsoft could have surely write a patch for IE6 to do it correctly.

    IE *WAS* a great browser. I’ve used IE from version 3 through version 6. IE still has potential to be a great browser. But it’s been sitting too comfortably on its throne (well, it seems not that comfortably, or IE7 would be Longhorn-only, I wager).

  135. Anonymous says:

    "I’m fed up with people putting the reins on MS and then justifying it with daft conspiracy theories and general distrust. Let the company innovate on the web. The <10%-share browsers can fall into line, where they belong."

    what a twit … arguing against an alleged stifling of innovation my ms while at the same time advocating stifling innovation by anyone but ms. take your brain out of the blender, it might heal …

  136. Anonymous says:

    "arguing against an alleged stifling of innovation my ms while at the same time advocating stifling innovation by anyone but ms"

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. My point is that waiting for standards to be discussed and agreed by the W3C is slowing down the adoption of innovative CSS techniques on the web by all browsers.

    Microsoft have traditionally led the way on innovation (or "proprietary extension", or whatever you want to call it). Let them continue. Stop the crazy web standards jihad

  137. "No, that’s not what I’m saying. My point is that waiting for standards to be discussed and agreed by the W3C is slowing down the adoption of innovative CSS techniques on the web by all browsers.

    Microsoft have traditionally led the way on innovation (or "proprietary extension", or whatever you want to call it). Let them continue. Stop the crazy web standards jihad"

    So, what you’re saying is, one browser, IE supports "filter", so all the other browsers should move and support it as well. I’ll give you that…it might not be a bad idea to wait for a standard in every case. If each browser documented how this was implemented (even in weird cases), this wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

    But let’s look at the other side. Lots of browsers support selectors like "ul#nav > li" (instead of just "ul#nav li", which can lead to nasty problems if you nest lists)…all Gecko browsers, KTHML browsers, Opera, etc.

    Let’s pretend for a second that this wasn’t standardized, since a lot of people seem to think that standards are too slow so we shouldn’t have them at all. Let’s say one non-Microsoft browser came up with this idea (I’m actually not sure where it came from), and all other browsers, except for IE, thought it was a good idea.

    Why is it okay for IE not to support this? Is IE the only browser allowed to innovate.

    Like I said before, proprietary extensions are fine (it does drive innovation, and pushes the standardization process), but don’t forget about actually implementing the standards, either.

  138. Anonymous says:

    I’ve posted most of my text in a separate location in order to save space in the comments area of this blog entry — http://my.tele2.ee/martrootamm/Kirjad/2005-05-30_E_commentsoncomments.html

    What does this "Remember Me?" check box do?

    -Mart.

  139. Anonymous says:

    Hey people, don’t use IE, don’t use Netscape. Just use Firefox. Or write your own browser. I can’t understand why people continues to use IE, that is such the worst application I ever tried. Microsoft(TM)(R) continues to give us bad software, and all people in the world seems pleased to use it. I can’t understand this.

    http://www.mozilla.org

    http://www.openoffice.org

    Start revenging yourself ๐Ÿ˜‰

    – All names and facts in this post are purely casual –

  140. Anonymous says:

    > Firstly, IE7’s developers have come very close to finishing their implementation of CSS2, as you would know if you’d been reading this blog and others.

    I have been reading this blog. The only things that I have seen confirmed wrt. CSS is elimination of the peekaboo and guillotine bugs.

    I would *LOVE* it if you could point me to a statement made by a Microsoft employee that states they have come very close to finishing their implementation of CSS 2.

    However I haven’t seen anything like that on this blog, and I suspect it’s just more untruths from you. Please, prove me wrong. I want to be wrong. Give me a link.

    > As for CSS3, why on earth should IE’s development team speed into implementing a standard that’s not even been decided on yet

    This is exactly what I mean when I say you are trolling. I’ve already pointed out that some CSS 3 specifications are ready to be implemented, and you ignore the facts and continue to spout misinformation.

    Here’s just one example:

    "This specification is being put forth as a W3C Candidate Recommendation by the CSS Working Group"

    "All persons are encouraged to review and implement this specification"

    "The CSS Working Group believes this document addresses all last call comments, and can be considered stable. It can still be updated by the Working Group, but only to clarify its meaning."

    http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/

    So go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting "the W3C are way too slow for Microsoft", when Microsoft even fails to implement specifications that the W3C published nine years ago. You only make yourself look even more ridiculous.

  141. Anonymous says:

    From Saint Louis Today: Microsoft Corp. is urging Windows users to uninstall the new Netscape 8 Web browser from their…

  142. Anonymous says:

    "I’ve already pointed out that some CSS 3 specifications are ready to be implemented, and you ignore the facts and continue to spout misinformation."

    And I’ve already explained that there is no value in a specification that is disparate and drip-fed into adoption.

    CSS2.1 is worthy of adoption because it is a benchmark standard – a reference that all implementors can adopt.

    CSS3 is just a hotch-potch bundle of standards that have been endlessly discussed since 1999. It’s NOT a coherent, complete specification. My complaint is with browser implementors having to wait years for the various bits of CSS3 to emerge from the W3C. It’s a complete farce. Especially when various CSS3 properties are just duplicating behaviour that MS has already made defacto in their own implementation since the late 90’s. Think element-level alpha, HTC behaviour, ruby characters, element orientation (eg vertical text) etc.

    And Jim, please stop with the troll accusations. You’re just making yourself look bad-natured.

  143. Anonymous says:

    IE suxs taht’s all…

    The major problem with Netscape, is that Netscape communications can’t provide as good support as Mozilla does to Firefox etc.

  144. Anonymous says:

    Just to remember that IE does not follow standards and MS is allways trying to block all software industry growth to mantain leadership. So why you guys claiming about a little bug in Netscape? How about javascript problems and proprietary java initiatives regarding IE browser? I abandoned IE a year ago… And I am VERY happy.

  145. Anonymous says:

    Hail to Opera and Firefox!

  146. Anonymous says:

    Hail with Opera and FireFox…

  147. Anonymous says:

    Uhhhh….Hmmm? What’s that? Netscape something… Ohhh yeah…I remember Netscape…

    It does something to IE? Oh. So what’s your point?

    <<This page viewed with Mozilla 1.75>>

    <<there.is.only.xul>>

  148. Anonymous says:

    I am not about to wade through that mess above so if this is mentioned sorry.

    I was having no problem with xml pages, but I was not able to see a lot of ASP pages.

    Followed the path to the registry key for the xml, found the xml key – point to something in the Netscape directory – and found an ASPX key – pointing the same place. Removed, and low and behold I can view pages that end in ASP again.

  149. Anonymous says:

    Sidenote: The pathetic responses above are why I will never in my life give Mozilla a chance.

    I am smart enough to respect the work that the developers are doing on that browser, but in no way ever want to be associated with the likes of those that commented above.

  150. Anonymous says:

    "Sidenote: The pathetic responses above are why I will never in my life give Mozilla a chance. I am smart enough to respect the work that the developers are doing on that browser, but in no way ever want to be associated with the likes of those that commented above."

    I hear you buddy!

    MS may have brought web browsing to the masses, but it looks like Firefox is bring web browsing to the imbecilic hordes.

  151. Anonymous says:

    Chris Beach wrote :

    > "No, that’s not what I’m saying. My point is that waiting for standards to be discussed and agreed by the W3C is slowing down the adoption of innovative CSS techniques on the web by all browsers."

    Hehehe… Microsoft did *not* innovate for the 4 past years… Nothing has changed… Lot’s of *innovative* CSS 2.1 thnigs are still not implemented… -> Internet Explorer *is* slowing down the adoption of standards that have been discussed 6 years ago…

    > "Microsoft have traditionally led the way on innovation (or "proprietary extension", or whatever you want to call it). Let them continue. Stop the crazy web standards jihad"

    Traditionnally… But speaking about the web, we haven’t seen any innovation since IE6…

    > "CSS3 is just a hotch-potch bundle of standards that have been endlessly discussed since 1999."

    Lots of CSS3 modules have reached the Candidate Recommandation. So user-agents developpers should implement what’s in those recommandation, thus allowing developpers to test it… And guess what, Gecko, Opera & KHTML are implementing those Candidate Recommandation. And once it has been widely tested and approved, it can reach the W3C Recommandation… But it can take a long time… Especially if the main browser does not care about it… Who’s slowing down the adoption of those standards again ? huh ?

    > "It’s NOT a coherent, complete specification."

    I don’t see why it is not coherent… And it is of course not complete, as it is not finished yet ๐Ÿ˜‰

    > "Especially when various CSS3 properties are just duplicating behaviour that MS has already made defacto in their own implementation since the late 90’s."

    Remember that Microsoft is part of the W3C, so they make some propositions ๐Ÿ˜‰

    > "MS may have brought web browsing to the masses,"

    Hmmmm… I would say that it is Netscape who brought web browsing to the masses… But Microsoft came, and crushed Netscape with their free browser…

  152. Anonymous says:

    I’ve frequently experienced Microsoft software incorrectly rewriting portions of the system in response to certain system changes – like default browser changes, MBR changes, or the installer service (which is the worst). In re-reading the blog entry, it does make a clear dance around which program is making the registry changes. ๐Ÿ™‚ Since I doubt that Netscape 8 is a continuously running process like IE, I would certainly doubt that it has the necessary hooks to maintain the registry key in question. Of course, Netscape (the present) is AOL’s bastard baby… so I wouldn’t put it past it to be running in the background to spawn spyware for the next few years.

    Also, why are people bashing about against Netscape as if it’s a huge competitor? You should be looking at Mozilla or Firefox as an alternative to IE; not Netscape.

    I’m also very depressed about the announcement of XP+ only support for IE7. I expected it, but it’s still disheartening to hear about more forced upgrades for users who insist on continuing to use IE.

    To people who mention that the XP upgrade path is "painless"; you’ve never done any sort of systems administration. A single errant _pixel_ will confuse the average user until his brain overloads. I still have to show MSCE certified technicians how to use the new start menu; or find control panel settings. It’s baffling. Then there’s the whole licensing scheme. I’ve already called India to renew my home subscription (yes, I like to call it a subscription. I have to repurchase it the next time I upgrade my machine – so says India). I don’t feel like doing that on a corporate level.

  153. Anonymous says:

    I want to thank Internet Explorer for allowing spyware and adware to be installed on millions of computers!

  154. Anonymous says:

    What kind of crap is this about Netscape writing in IE’s registry keys?! As if MS apps never done that! MS is known for these kind of "bugs" so stop whining! IE6 apparently doesn’t know how to render xml – everybody knows MS is not sticking to standards when they should, and now they know why…

    IE is gone and lost, and IE7 will not help MS in recovering their loss of market share. I want to bet that it will take less than 1 week after release until the first bug in IE7 will be discovered!

  155. Anonymous says:

    "What kind of crap is this about Netscape writing in IE’s registry keys?! As if MS apps never done that!"

    err.. what’s wrong with MS apps writing in MS registry keys? lol

    If Netscape writes in IE registry keys – THAT’S more of a problem.

  156. Anonymous says:

    Chris, you still haven’t explained why you keep talking as if there aren’t finished, ready-to-implement CSS 3 specifications. Or do you concede that they exist now?

    And I’d still like to know where you heard that Microsoft have almost finished complete CSS 2 support. Really. If they really said something like that, I would like to know about it.

  157. Anonymous says:

    Jim, as Chris Wilson points out:

    "there is no CSS3 standard yet"

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

    CSS3 will never be a standard until all the disparate parts, in their various stages of discussion/recommendation are pieced together and full tested in real implementation.

    As for support for the current CSS standards:

    "The first couple of things theyโ€™ve done are .. Address[ed] CSS consistency problems"

    "the beta release is almost here"

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04/22/410963.aspx

  158. Anonymous says:

    > "there is no CSS3 standard yet"

    So you have resorted to ignoring me when I point out that CSS 3 is a *group* of specifications then?

    There is no DHTML standard either. But that doesn’t mean that browsers don’t support ECMA-262, the DOM and CSS, which are the specifications that comprise "DHTML".

    Let’s start small. Can you agree that this specification exists?

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/

    Can you agree that it says:

    "All persons are encouraged to review and implement this specification"

    Can you agree that it says:

    "The CSS Working Group believes this document addresses all last call comments, and can be considered stable. It can still be updated by the Working Group, but only to clarify its meaning."

    If you can agree on all that, then I’ll ask my question again:

    Chris, you still haven’t explained why you keep talking as if there aren’t finished, ready-to-implement CSS 3 specifications. Or do you concede that they exist now?

    > "The first couple of things theyโ€™ve done are .. Address[ed] CSS consistency problems"

    In what fantasy land is "addressed CSS consistency problems" evidence of a full CSS 2 implementation? You left out the all-important context; he said that in relation to fixing the Peekaboo and Guillotine bugs, with nary a mention of implementing any more of the CSS 2 specification.

  159. Anonymous says:

    Jim: "So you have resorted to ignoring me when I point out that CSS 3 is a *group* of specifications then?"

    I’m not going to get drawn into your diatribe, Jim. Of course I know that a group of specifications make up CSS3. As I have explained, this is the root of the problem, since they are all at varying stage of design, and there’s very little concrete adoption on the Web to show for any of them.

    The W3C started CSS3 in 1999. They’re still going now, SIX years later. I don’t care what parallels you’d like to draw with IE. The W3C are clearly INEFFECTIVE at creating a cohesive CSS3 standard that’s ready for adoption by all browsers. No browser can claim "I support CSS3" and this is unlikely to change before the end of the decade.

    This is therefore a farce.

  160. Anonymous says:

    > The W3C are clearly INEFFECTIVE at creating a cohesive CSS3 standard that’s ready for adoption by all browsers.

    You are *still* talking as if CSS 3 is one monolithic specification!

    Why aren’t you complaining that the W3C haven’t finished the "Internet" standard? Is it because Internet technologies are best described in a number of different specifications? Then why do you insist on ignoring the fact that CSS 3 is a *group* of specifications?

    The W3C saw a need to specify a colour module for stylesheets. They gathered input. They wrote a specification. They gathered feedback. They made revisions. After a while, they published a finished specification and are asking people to implement it. Some browser developers are already doing so.

    Why do you feel the need to drag other presentational concepts into it, and say that because *other* CSS 3 specifications haven’t been finished, that the specifications that *are* finished don’t matter?

    It’s like saying that it’s impossible to read any Stephen King novels because he hasn’t finished writing his latest one yet. Nonsense!

    Do you have any more places where you think Microsoft have claimed they’ve almost finished their CSS 2 implementation, or are you conceding that point?

  161. Anonymous says:

    Jim: "Then why do you insist on ignoring the fact that CSS 3 is a *group* of specifications?"

    Sigh.. this is the BASIS of my point, which I have already explained. I’m really, really bored of your inflammatory diatribe now.

  162. Anonymous says:

    I tried uninstalling NS8, still the problem persists. I do not have such a registry entry to remove. What am I supposed to do? I’m stuck with NS8. Right now I ended up using NS8 as my default browser as I’m a web developer and need the xml display to test webservices.

    -raj

  163. Anonymous says:

    Chris Beach said :

    "As I have explained, this is the root of the problem, since they are all at varying stage of design, and there’s very little concrete adoption on the Web to show for any of them."

    You can’t have a concrete adoption :

    – 80% of web-developpers don’t even know the word "CSS"

    – the leading browser (IE) hasn’t a complete implementation of CSS 2 yet…

    Imagine that IE7 is released, and that it implements some of the CSS3 candidate recommandation… IE is causing a lot of harm in the adoption of CSS3…

  164. Anonymous says:

    Another Problem? Used Netscape 8 to view statements on a Merrill Lynch site. Statements came up in a PDF window which hung. Ever since when I try to bring up the statement pages with IE, I get a blank page and the globe never stops spinning. Can use Back to go back to the previous page. The XML registery key does not exist. Uninstalled Netscape – problem remains. Used add remove programs to Repair IE – problem remains. Any similar problems or a fix?

  165. Anonymous says:

    Just install Firefox :

    http://www.spreadfirefox.com/

  166. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft has alerted users that Netscape’s latest browser appears to break the XML rendering capabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Dave Massy, a senior programme manager for IE, warned users in a blog posting that after installing Netscape 8, IE will…

  167. Anonymous says:

    This isn’t about XML’s. I hope it is alright to post here.

    Since I have installed the 8.0.1 Netscape fix, I have been experiencing two problems. One is when I first click on Netscape and the process freezes showing me that 99.9% of my CPU is being used. Using Task Manager, I end the program and click on it again. The second go around everything comes up alright.

    The other problem is with the email applet. Right in the middle of writing an email the program will automatically minimize it to the Start Menu time and again.

    If some else is experiencing these problems or knows of a fix, I would sure appreciate the help.

  168. Anonymous says:

    I think that Netscape is doing us all a favour in disabling xml in IE. IE is a miserable waste of code, and I commend Netscape for saving users from their own stupidity. In fact, I decided to leave Microsoft for good, because of the inferior quality of their products. It was because of MS getting complacent and sitting on their laurels with IE that I went to Mozilla, and, later on, left Windows for two Macs and converted my Windows box to Linux.

  169. Anonymous says:

    To quote several inane users:

    "I think that Netscape is doing us all a favour in disabling xml in IE"

    "Hail to Opera and Firefox!"

    "I abandoned IE a year ago… And I am VERY happy."

    "IE suxs taht’s all…"

    Why do you guys waste your time writing about your ignorance and loathing of Microsoft / Internet Explorer and love for competing products?

    This site is designed to be a constructive environment where the developers make a genuine effort to communicate with the public. Don’t waste this opportunity. If you plan to use future versions of IE, then HELP the developers make the product you want.

    If you are resigned to using competing products then that’s fine – but don’t waste this site’s resources by spouting your feelings of abandonment, disillusionment or general angst here. It’s pathetic, and wastes everyone’s time

  170. Anonymous says:

    Chris, baby, why are you wasting your time defending technology that is on the way out. Buy a macintosh, perhaps that will make you a happier person, cause you seem wound up a little too tight. Chill out man.

  171. Anonymous says:

    "why are you wasting your time defending technology that is on the way out. Buy a macintosh, perhaps that will make you a happier person"

    Bob, "baby," I’m spending two minutes of my time defending technology that’s on the way IN (IE7). I’m fed up of people abusing this and other MS blogs.

    For your information, I am in fact an Apple user, but I still use PC’s from time to time (and Windows is a darn sight more stable than OS X)

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=6483

  172. Anonymous says:

    Note to self — stop feeding the trolls..

  173. Anonymous says:

    Hey guy`s IE6 with SP2 on Windows XP Pro had a problem, but not width NS8. Since friday june/3 my IE6 don’t show the web pages with XML and i haven’t installed NS8 or other similar program. why ???

  174. Anonymous says:

    Chris, Chris, Chris, man, take up yoga, get out more, IE7, IE8, Safari, why get so twisted about it? It’s only a browser, if it’s got a problem, then the developers will fix it, you can’t save the IT world, just let it slide man.

  175. Anonymous says:

    Chloe:

    You make me laugh. I haven’t even got through a quarter of these posts and I am already in stitches. I have just got to the part where you have stated that you are indeed a web developer. I have been reading your comments and I am amazed that you have stated this. Maybe you can point us to a few of your sites so we can see them?

    Personally, I do not believe you are a web developer, or if you are I think you use FrontPage. Personally I think you work for Microsoft or have somekind of affiliation to them. You seem far too pro-Microsoft for my liking, far too willing to dismiss non-MS products for the most stupidest of reasons. Your ability to dismiss standards, especially web standards, is amazing. Your accusations that Opera is bloated is amazing – Opera bloated, IE not, absolutely hilarious. MS should impose their authority should they? Only webmasters want standards do they? (This one made me laugh the most – surely a web DEVELOPER knows the difference between a web developer and a webmaster [or website administrator to give it it’s proper name]).

    I look forward to the rest of your comments as today I was feeling down but now I am having a right old laugh at your expense. In fact, I have sent the link to these comments to all my friends (mostly non-web developers who understand the need for somekind of web standards).

    Standards are needed. I have recently finished one simple page, a form, laid out and formatted using simple CSS. This page works in Netscape, Opera, K-Meleon, Firefox etc, but it does not display properly in IE. Now why is that. I can fix it simply enough, but why should I? It works in all browsers except IE? To me that says IE is broken.

    If you are a web developer as you claim to be, I think you should start looking at the web standards and start using them. Learn CSS. In fact, take a project and try to write some simple pages using standard HTML & CSS and then try them in ALL the browsers you can find. Once you have done this try the same pages in IE!

    Also, as a side project, try searching the net on the subject of IE & CSS. It makes interesting reading.

    To keep on topic, the new netscape uses the IE engine as well as the Gecko engine doesn’t it? Maybe this will explain some things!!

  176. Anonymous says:

    Chloe, don’t make the same mistake as I did – ignore these pathetic trolls, and keep your sound arguments coming. Nice to see that not everyone is an OSS/Mozilla zealot in this forum

  177. Anonymous says:

    Chris baby, I thought you were going to keep on-topic? But I can see that you really do need that yoga lesson. Turn of the Microsoft drugs and go outside, I’m sure it’s going to be a nice day today.

  178. Anonymous says:

    RE: Netscape and their tactics. What else do you expect from a pig, but a grunt. Netscape programmers ARE weenies and now they’ve spawned to a whole new generation. Perhaps that is why AOL stands for AnOther Loser. Programmatical overwrites of someone else’s registry key doesn’t happen by accident. Anyone who believes that must be easily fooled. Call me. Let’s talk about your new investments.

    IBM started it with DOS 4.0. It’s a mindset. Do what you want to MSFT and when MSFT fights back or complains, sue them and cry foul.

    Bob…

    Yoga is not for everyone. Telling someone to change their lifestyle in a blog is pointless unless it’s a Dr. Phil site and the topic is "Yoga and you" a.k.a. sitting around in weird positions for those who are reality challenged and stress out when the clock ticks.

    Jim…

    You’re an idiot. Your argument loses weight when you focus on personal attacks. If CSS3 is a group of specifications then it should be called the CSS3 Group. If the "committee" has been working on it since 1999, then THEY’RE SLOOOOOOOOW, like you. They don’t get it, you don’t get it. We, get it.

    To the Einstein in the muzak industry… you’re out of your element and have no idea what you’re talking about. Ya’, everyone in the muzak industry got together and created this Utopia, man, it was like, cool and everything. Take another hit and feed us again. Your comparison is not relevant and it’s BS besides. You could compare the music industry to Hitler and it would be a close call as to who has destroyed more lives. Perhaps you’re not aware of their lobby efforts to be able to hack into any computer, legally, if they FEEL you MIGHT BE storing illegal copies of muzak. Sounds like a bunch of choir boys to me. 78s, 45s, 33s, 8-track, cassettes, laser disks, CDs, DVDs.. when will it end? It won’t. Why not make billions on each new technology which is just slightly better than the other?

    I read some posts that said, "It’s much easier to develop for FF." Aaaaaaaack spit! That’s just BS and you know it. I spend 400-500% more time on FF than IE.

    One argument was: Why the confusing [] and () for indexing? And if IE only had one, the argument would be, how come IE only has one?

    Well, why doesn’t Javascript use () instead of []. Oh wait, they do for some things. No confusion there. Javascript is also case-sensitive but won’t tell you it’s a case-sensitivity error, although that would be something very easy to implement. Rather, it’s object expected.

    Why was Word Perfect so hard to use? They [WP] said, "If it’s hard to program, it’s got to be hard to use." I guess that didn’t work out very well. Another war MSFT won.

    Someone tell me why MSFT must support all the crap that comes from the open-source community but they [open source] hardly ever support anything from MSFT? How many browsers support vbscript? How many web servers support ASP and client-side vbscript? How many support MS Access?

    For the dink who had to include, "DOS isn’t done until Lotus won’t run." just shows how stupid 1-2-3 users were. Lotus was the company, 1-2-3 was the app and it sucked. Here’s an idea. Take me out of my app to use another part of my app so I can chart my values using really crappy text graphics. That one feature is what killed Lotus 1-2-3. In Excel, I highlight my cells, with my mouse, in screen mode 12, using a GUI interface and press F11. The chart appears. I didn’t even need the full version of Windows because MSFT offered a runtime version to Excel would run without the full version.

    MSFT won most wars because they were the first, and the only at the time, that thought the interface should be "user friendly." They also thought it was a pretty good idea to assign devices/drivers to the OS, rather than to each app.

    Apple said they stold the technology from them which both got from Xerox. Xerox had some brilliant technology but was too stupid to know what to do with it.

    Mr. Fedora Core 3 and 4. I’m running it. It sucks the big one. The Mozilla browser hangs more than Johnny Wad.

    Mandrake? Ya’, Linux for weenies (see Netscape programmers).

    I’m tired of hearing, Linux runs on my old 386 with 64k of memory, and washes my moped and cooks my pizza and chills my Diet Pepsi. The reason your Linux runs on your 386 is because you’re poor. That’s all you have and it runs pretty damn bad on it too.

    The browser war is not over, it never will be. There will always be those that think everything should be given to them. We classify these people as free-loaders (see Liberals and other people’s money).

    What I would like to see in IE7 is:

    a version that does not integrate with the OS. Give me IE and IE Integrated (a.k.a. Windows Explorer) but call it IE Integrated. Also, MS Word does not have to be able to surf the net.

    Hopefully OE will also be upgraded because I’m about ready to shoot it.

    You can put in tabbed browsing but I would prefer tiled and cascaded browsing. I’d like to see all my pages at once.

    Allow me to let my desktop background be my browser (IE Integrated). While you’re at it, give me more options than just large icons view on my desktop. I would prefer to have a list or detail view, like in Windows Explorer.

    When I set the doctype to strict, IE should only support standards, nothing propritary. This would give me something no other browser can offer, full compliance for standards ONLY! There does not exist one on the planet today.

    From the tiled view, let me click and drag a window off onto the desktop to get a new window and offer it as a copy or a move. I would also like to double click a header, as I can to get a full window but when in tiled view, my browser would open to another window.

    Let me put my menus, toolbars anywhere I want on my browser and even off my browser.

    Give me a way to identify, clear enough for n00bs, that I am in secure mode (SSL). The tiny icon in the status bar is not very useful if the status bar is off.

    For those of you who think standards is so great, let’s compare it to another standard that doesn’t work very well. It’s called the U.N. Crappy org running just as bad with the same attitude towards the leader of the pack.

    I’m not completely happy with IE but then there’s nothing else out there that would make me completely happy.

  179. Anonymous says:

    Roland: "Someone tell me why MSFT must support all the crap that comes from the open-source community but they [open source] hardly ever support anything from MSFT? How many browsers support vbscript?"

    Roland is damned right!

    OSS advocates are under the illusion that open-source IS the world of software, and therefore they have the right to press their open standards on every bit of commercial software. They fail to understand that in most cases, the adoption, documentation, testing and support of proprietary software is INFINITELY superior to their own hobbyist efforts, and that some open standards (eg CSS3) are becoming ridiculously bloated and impractical to adopt.

    The cabal of minority browsers are using the web standards jihad as part of their monstrous grass-roots marketing campaign to gain market share for their fledgeling browsers. What the advocates fail to realise is that users (i.e. the people browsing the web) don’t give two hoots about the latest CSS trivia, or browsing with mouse-gestures, or daft browser "skins".

    Yes, of course IE should have it’s bugs patched, and support PNG, but come on you standards advocates – you’re making an almighty mountain out of a molehile here.

  180. Anonymous says:

    "You’re an idiot. Your argument loses weight when you focus on personal attacks."

    Priceless. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Something for the blame-Netscape crowd to explain:

    WinXPSP1, install N8, no problem.

    Add SP2, no more XML rendering.

    Conspiracy? I don’t know, but maybe blame should be re-assessed.

  181. Anonymous says:

    Brianiac: Priceless ๐Ÿ™‚

    Perhaps you’re not familiar with the definition of "personal attack."

    Brianiac: Something for the blame-Netscape crowd to explain:

    WinXPSP1, install N8, no problem.

    Add SP2, no more XML rendering.

    Conspiracy? I don’t know, but maybe blame should be re-assessed.

    So, what you’re saying is MSFT is to blame for Netscape rewriting IE’s registry key?

    You’re probably right as nobody is willing to accept blame for anything these days. That old lady put herself in the position to have her purse snatched. That store owner was just looking to get robbed. That woman was just asking to be raped by dressing sexy. MSFT shouldn’t allow Netscape to overwrite IE’s registry keys. MSFT is to blame. it all makes sense when you put it that way.

  182. Anonymous says:

    Chris Beach said :

    "Chloe, don’t make the same mistake as I did – ignore these pathetic trolls"

    LOL

    This one made me laugh for fifteen minutes… Come on… Who’s the real pathetic troll here ?

    "You see a mote in another’s eye but cannot see a beam in your own" ๐Ÿ˜‰

  183. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft goon squad is getting organized, FALL BACK, FALL BACK".

  184. Anonymous says:

    Nice tip!!fixed my problem with above soln. thx!

  185. Anonymous says:

    Got Netscape 8? Got Internet Explorer 6? Then you’ve got broken XML in Internet Explorer. Until now. Netscape’s issued an updated version that fixes the problem, according to BetaNews. Get Netscape 8.02 here….

  186. Anonymous says:

    While I will agree that IE as some cool features, it also has some serious security holes.

    For the owner of this blog to suggest uninstalling Netscape shows a lack of technical insight. Quite frankly it’s irresponsible, as well as laughable. It smells of typical Gates angst, complete with whiny MS cheerleaders.

    There’s a whole industry based on spyware and virus removal thanks to Microsoft. Perhaps these MS employee bloggers should spend less time giving ridiculous advice, and spend more time fixing the Boeing 747-size security holes.

    BTW, I just installed SuSE Linux for my mother. She loves it!

    Signed,

    A Linux and Windows user.

  187. Anonymous says:

    Heh – Looks like a lot of really upset people here. Really upset. Some of the comments are most amusing.

    I don’t know who’s to blame here, MS, Mozilla, or AOL. What I do know is that almost everyone who has posted here looks like a religous zealot.

    What it comes down to in simple terms is:

    1) IE has problems.

    2) Netscape has problems.

    And the vast majority of posters here would leave an alien from Mars who read the posts determined not to use either product,

  188. Anonymous says:

    I am a webmaster and care deeply about standards – and I by far a hardcore webmaster – I am just sick of making workarounds for IE when everything else works in any other browser because I make my pages standards compliant with rigerous testing –

    I finally gave up and just tell people to go download firefox – its free and they will be browser with a standards compliant browser and also more secure.

    I am sick of the attitude that it is other people’s problem to be compatible with microsoft – it is about time microsoft start being compatible with free software – or we will just stop buying you crap and get the FREE stuff – just like any other product we buy.

    It is just common sense.

  189. Anonymous says:

    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/3264.html

    "…when officials were amending the XML problem, they came across faulty documentation on Internet Explorer, which is the likely reason behind of the problem…"

  190. Anonymous says:

    I think all this talk about letting Microsoft define the standards is pretty funny.

    Microsoft likes to patent things, it’s one of their revenue plans. So then we lose the ability to have "free" browsers (Ie isn’t free, you pay for it with Windows) because Microsoft requires that you license their patents and if their current such licenses are any indication they will preclude use in open source browsers like Mozilla/Firefox/Konqueror and possibly even Safari on the Apple platform due to it’s KHTML core.

    I’m a web developer, and when I write a site in current valid XHTML/CSS it works in Firefox, Netscape, Mozilla, Safari, Konqueror etc. It requires CSS fixes to work properly in Internet Explorer though. The IE developers have already agreed to fix some of these bugs so why are we all argueing about it? I just want to be able to write a page and have it look and function the same in all modern browsers, and possibly the next generation of browsing devices like Nokia’s new web tablet and smartphones/pda’s.

    You might like to go back to bloated table layouts and the like but I’d like to go forwards if it’s ok with you.

    The IE guys are trying to fix the bugs, so lets let then get on with it and stop the pointless arguing.

    Also, keep in mind that if Xerox had patented the GUI, would OSX and XP exist now? If the guys that invented TCP/IP had been unable to reach a standard argreement would the Internet exist now?

    Anyone that thinks standards are not important needs their head read. In case you haven’t heard Microsoft don’t own the Internet, they don’t even own most of it. If they did then they could set the standards however they liked but the fact is that they don’t.

    As a web developer it annoys me no end to hear all the zealots here going on about how the standards don’t matter and Microsoft should just go nuts making stuff up. It annoyes me cos I’m worried the MS developers might listen and make the situation worse then it is. When it comes to that stage, I will write a basic txt only version of a web site and set the server up to deliver it to IE users. Microsoft doesn’t own the billions of pages out there either, if they did we’d not be having this discussion. And if enough of those users served IE a basic text page instead of the full experiance then I’d imagine Firefox’s market share would sky rocket over night.

    I actually feel somewhat sorry for the IE developers, they are probably very good programmers, and could write a very good browser, but most likely have to tow the company line when it comes to interoperability, patentability and all that other jazz. I imagine that it will take Microsoft being found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour in Asia and possibly china before they start realising that having 88% of the browser market stitched up doesn’t mean they own the Internet. Well, we have had two guilty verdicts for anti-competitive behaviour, US and EU, and microsoft is spending billions trying to settle lawsuits like Sun and Novell, and yet for every one they settle, two more pop up. Eventually even Bill and Steve must reach the conclusion that they can’t all be wrong and that perhaps they should look at their own SOP with regards to interoperability.

    Personally I’d like to see IBM open source OS2 and make it a valid Win32/64 platform for client machines, then they have Linux on the server and OS2 on the client. I don’t want Windows or Microsoft to go away, I just want them to start playing nice with others with regards to interoperability.

    A recent case of MS not playing nicely is the SenderID framework, they based it on an open standard, SPF and tacked on their own stuff, after patenting it and licencing it in a manner that makes it unusuable to the Internets most predominant Mail servers. (Sendmail/Postfix/Qmail)

    If they hadn’t done that, if they had said, "well Spam is a bigger issue then our need to be incompatible, so lets make this an open stardard" then we’d all be getting less spam now. And what if SPF had been patented? SenderID would then having noting to sit on top of.

    Like I said, Microsoft is all gung ho for patenting ideas as a means to generate revenue and lock out competitors, even when their own patented technology runs on top of a standard that somebody else came up with and gave away in order to reduce the spam problem.

    So sure, tout the benefits of a Microsoft Internet if you like, but while your loading your IE coded pages to a Unix/Linux server running Apache (who after all have about 70% of the worlds web server software market) that if Apache took the same aproach as Microsoft, all pages served from apache would add an adendum to the bottom of every page telling them to get Firefox.

    I’m raving now, thanks very much. Standards… we need them. I’m sick of the IE CSS box model hacks and the fact that I must use proprietry jpg’s/gifs because microsoft didn’t see the need to support the free versions properly.

    Oh, and with regards to the moz- additions, their name makes it obvious what they are, mozilla specific code. I’d like to see all of MS’s such code be labelled msie- because then I’d know not to use it on any site that has users on other browsers or platforms, just like I don’t use moz- features on sites where I know users are IE.

    Good luck with IE7 guys. Pleaes listen more to your develper nature rather then your MS project manager when coding for it.

    rgds

    Franki

  191. Anonymous says:

    Chloe,

    Unbelievable!

    "It’s obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which, there will be no compelling reason to use it. "

    You don’t actually know what’s in the works for browsers in the future – I expect you don’t claim to be a medium?

    A browser of Firefox calibre would have been reached much sooner were it not for IE being preloaded on unsuspecting users computers, and then being left to stagnate.

    Netscape was almost completely destroyed by this strategy (well done Microsoft) – except that it was considered illegal.

    "PS If there are any Netscape browser developers reading this, your UI is pathetic."

    IEs UI is abhorrent.

    "Instead of using Flash which is installed on 97% of computers they insist on implementing SVG. How many pages do you know of that use VML, let alone SVG? And Mozilla are more than happy to ’embrace and extend’ – think of ‘moz-‘ in CSS."

    VML and SVG do not prevent flash from working – where did you get that idea?

    Oh and the CSS "extension"? Nice try, but Gecko is used for laying out the entire UI, not just the web pages. How else would you propose styling the UI elements?

    "It’s time for MS to impose their authority. "

    MS doesn’t have any authority on web technology, only an illegally obtained (but shrinking) monopoly.

    "Realise this: no-one in the ‘real world’ outside militant webmasters cares about standards. They don’t care about corner cases like Acid2. People want a browser which shows their pages. Webmasters are of course forced to test their pages, coding around corner cases if necessary, and so there are no problems."

    This is totally bogus. Most web designers aim at IE, Netscape, Safari and Opera. Many include others, like Konqueror. Just because you’d rather not bother doesn’t mean you’re in the majority.

    Plus you’re angry at the wrong party. IE is the REASON that web pages need tweaking. It’s relatively simple to create web pages with HTML/CSS and have it work on compliant browsers without tweaking.

    Only IE is the fly in the ointment.

    Plus standards are important to other user agents. For blind people, for example. Web pages that adhere to the standards work well for those readers, but pages designed for IE are horrible. So thanks again MS.

    "Even widespread standards don’t actually work – they always have leaks in their specs. No two implementations will be the same, and if developers are forced to run to the W3C every time they have a question no-one would get anything done."

    Many specs in many industries prove you wrong.

    Take Java. JVMs by Sun, IBM and Blackdown. Many others. All work.

    Compliance is tested.

    The only major vendor to release a non-compliant JVM? MS. hmmmm….

    "Fortunately I trust Microsoft to base their decisions firmly on economic principles rather than idealism."

    Nice, but MS doesn’t base their decisions on YOUR or MY welfare or economic advantage: only their own, and that of their shareholders – of course.

    The fact is the IE wouldn’t be a player if it had had to compete on merit alone. (And the two "hads" is intended and correct)

  192. Anonymous says:

    YAWN!

  193. Anonymous says:

    Netscape 8.0.2 solves this problem. Couldn’t tell if it was posted through all the ranting.

  194. Anonymous says:

    > It’s obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox

    > UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but

    > that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which,

    > there will be no compelling reason to use it.

    I agree – after Firefox becomes another two orders of magnitude better than IE there really will be no reason at all to use IE.

    ML

  195. Anonymous says:

    He said the new version will be built on the work they did in SP2, and other things. Gates mentioned they will go further to defend IE users from phishing and other deceptive software.

Skip to main content