[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Microsoft's deeply cynicalappealto"standards compl iance"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Joshua Allen <email@example.com>, Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>,XML-DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:41:49 -0500
You have a good point, Joshua, in that the cost of trying to make
content work with multiple incompatible systems is quite
high. For that reason, in intranet applications or
reasonably constrained applications, we do not recommend other than
IE nor will we contract for cross-browser compatible
delivery. On an open public site, different rules apply
yet solutions that say "best viewed with X" have been
applied widely for some time.
I'm glad to see the article that explains the
reversal of the policy.
It will be interesting to see how well other XML application
languages (eg, SVG) fare with this problem. The
VRML experience was illuminating with respect to the
difficulty of keeping declarative language standards
interoperable at rendering and behavioral fidelity: close
wasn't good enough for rendering and even worse for
behavior. The Highlander saga continues.
From: Joshua Allen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
maintain different code for different browsers. Typical would be one
set of routines for IE5, one for Netscape 4.x, and another for Netscape
6 and IE6 (since IE6 and Netscape 6 *finally* can share most of the same