Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [xml-doc] Digest Number 595

Expand Messages
  • Eric Armstrong
    ... Hmm. I hadn t realized there was a 7.0. I have 6.0. Time to take another look... ... Actually, IE 6.0 turned out to have a slight problem, in that it
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ed nixon wrote:

      > In a real sense, Mozilla and Netscape 7.0 have withstood more and more
      > focussed, detailed scrutiny in terms of reliability, security and
      > standards compliance than any other browser product because of the
      > length and openess of the development process.

      Hmm. I hadn't realized there was a 7.0. I have 6.0. Time to take another
      look...

      > I am biased of course because Mozilla 1.1 is by primary browser but I
      > *will* say it is more reliable in every sense than any of the
      > alternatives. If I were king, I'd suggest strongly that people just get
      > a move on and upgrade if, for no other reason, than to save themselves
      > the aggrovation of the inconsistencies and lack of standardization. To
      > be fair, IE 6.0 is very respectable in terms of its standards compliance
      > but it fails as a genuine cross-platform product and may eventually fail
      > further as a Web application platform, as well because of security and
      > privacy concerns.

      Actually, IE 6.0 turned out to have a slight problem, in that it wanted to
      treat any file which had <...> tags in it as an XML file, even if the MIME
      type said it was plain text -- and even if the tags were buried in the file.

      Can you tell me if either NS 7.0 or Moz 1.1 works differently?
    • Eric Armstrong
      ... Thanks, Nancy. I feel like less of a duffer .
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        "Nancy (Paisner) Harrison" wrote:

        > It may well be that companies *should* be moving towards NS 7, but as a company
        > developing enterprise software for companies much bigger than we are, we
        > have no
        > choice but to support the browsers they tell us they're using, at least
        > till NS 7 has
        > been out long enough for them to adopt it company-wide.

        Thanks, Nancy.
        I feel like less of a "duffer".
        :_)
      • Nancy (Paisner) Harrison
        Don t get me wrong; we are absolutely supporting NS 7 in our next release, and it will presumably be our recommended support level, because 4.7x is old and
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Don't get me wrong; we are absolutely supporting NS 7 in our next release,
          and it
          will presumably be our 'recommended' support level, because 4.7x is old and
          doesn't
          provide support for a lot of functionality we want to use. We absolutely
          see the release
          of a usable modern version of NS as an opportunity. It's just that we
          could never go to
          NS 6, and therefore couldn't dump support for NS 4.7x till NS 7 had been
          out for a while.

          - Nancy

          At 06:15 PM 9/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
          >I suppose it's naive to see the availability of NS7 as an opportunity.
          >Presumably its benefits could be made to be seen as obvious: standards
          >compliance, accessibility opportunities, application development
          >platform, lower knowledge management costs. Perhaps it could be used as
          >part of your pitch to new clients (as well as the dream success vehicle
          >for the executive in charge. :)
          >
          > ...edN
          >
          >Nancy (Paisner) Harrison wrote:
          > > It may well be that companies *should* be moving towards NS 7, but as a
          > company
          > > developing enterprise software for companies much bigger than we are, we
          > > have no
          > > choice but to support the browsers they tell us they're using, at least
          > > till NS 7 has
          > > been out long enough for them to adopt it company-wide. My point is that,
          > > whatever
          > > its faults, and it certainly has lots, there was no credible replacement
          > > for NS 4.7x
          > > until NS 7 came out. We tried to move up to support NS 6.x over a
          > couple of
          > > releases and were never able to because of its defects.
          > >
          > > Regards,
          > >
          > > - Nancy
          > >
          > >
          > > At 05:01 PM 9/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
          > >
          > >>Nancy (Paisner) Harrison wrote:
          > >>
          > >>>David,
          > >>>
          > >>>So are you supporting development aimed at NS 4.78 but not 4.77?
          > >>
          > >>Is there a significant difference? My understanding is that new releases
          > >>of 4.x versions of Netscape are bug-fixes to address security issues and
          > >>are required by contractual obligations between Netscape and (how many
          > >>can there be?) customers. There are no new features introduced nor, I
          > >>gather, are there fixes applied to the extremely faulty and delapidated
          > >>parsing and display code.
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>>Since Mozilla has officially been out only a short time, I wouldn't expect
          > >>>support for NS 4.7x to be removed based on its existence. Software
          > >>>obsolescence typically is a function not of the age of the software to be
          > >>>obsoleted, but the age of its successor software. In this case, NS 4.78+
          > >>>has been around for quite a while, but Mosilla, as you say, was released
          > >>>quite recently.
          > >>
          > >>This is an interesting and likely controvertial question. If, for
          > >>example, a company's policy supports the Netscape alternative to
          > >>Internet Explorer, it would seem to me *that* company should be trying
          > >>to hussle its users away from Netscape 4.x toward Netscape 7.0 as
          > >>quickly as possible. This, in order to try to stem the flow of their
          > >>users away from MS (if there are any left who have not left the barn by
          > >>now.)
          > >>
          > >>In reality and in my experience, browser use policies in companies are a
          > >>shambles with most people using whichever browser they please. I've even
          > >>seen absurd situations where the nominal, official browser standard is
          > >>Netscape while, at the same time, major enterprise-wide HR Web
          > >>applications are developed in such a way as to require Internet
          > >>Explorer! I suppose it would be uncharitable to say that these types of
          > >>companies, of which there are many, deserve to be penalized for poor
          > >>management via excessive costs and content chaos but we are not
          > >>uncharitable on this list.
          > >>
          > >>In a real sense, Mozilla and Netscape 7.0 have withstood more and more
          > >>focussed, detailed scrutiny in terms of reliability, security and
          > >>standards compliance than any other browser product because of the
          > >>length and openess of the development process.
          > >>
          > >>I am biased of course because Mozilla 1.1 is by primary browser but I
          > >>*will* say it is more reliable in every sense than any of the
          > >>alternatives. If I were king, I'd suggest strongly that people just get
          > >>a move on and upgrade if, for no other reason, than to save themselves
          > >>the aggrovation of the inconsistencies and lack of standardization. To
          > >>be fair, IE 6.0 is very respectable in terms of its standards compliance
          > >>but it fails as a genuine cross-platform product and may eventually fail
          > >>further as a Web application platform, as well because of security and
          > >>privacy concerns.
          > >>
          > >>Regards. ...edN
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >>Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
          > >>Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >>Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
          > >>Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
          > >>Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
          > >>Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
          > >>Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
          > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >>
          > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ________________________
          > > Nancy (Paisner) Harrison
          > > Rational Software
          > > Lexington MA
          > > nancyh@...
          > >
          > >
          > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
          > > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
          > > Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
          > > Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
          > > Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
          > > Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
          > > Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
          > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >-------------------------------------------------------------------
          >Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
          >Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
          >Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
          >Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
          >Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
          >Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
          >-------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


          ________________________
          Nancy (Paisner) Harrison
          Rational Software
          Lexington MA
          nancyh@...
        • ed nixon
          ... I ve not heard of that one. I have seen a note saying that IE6 will slip into its Quirks more if it encounters an xml processing instruction on the first
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 9, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Eric Armstrong wrote:
            > <snip/>
            >
            > Actually, IE 6.0 turned out to have a slight problem, in that it wanted to
            > treat any file which had <...> tags in it as an XML file, even if the MIME
            > type said it was plain text -- and even if the tags were buried in the file.

            I've not heard of that one. I have seen a note saying that IE6 will slip
            into its "Quirks more" if it encounters an xml processing instruction on
            the first line of an xml file; rather an odd and obvious bug I would
            have thought. Quirks mode, in case you haven't encountered it is a
            processing mode permits the browser to ignore a host of problems that
            would be errors if the constraints of well-formedness and valisation
            were invoked. Mozilla/NS 7 have something similar. I haven't checked to
            see if they all go "quirky" for the same reasons but, if they do, it
            would be a complete accident.

            >
            > Can you tell me if either NS 7.0 or Moz 1.1 works differently?

            I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean does
            Mozilla/Netscape watch for and react to mime-type, the answer is yes, at
            least when it comes to validating the CSS file. I'm not aware of any
            major bugs in Mozilla/NS7 in this regard. I've never heard of its
            mistaking a text file for an XML file. Which is not to say it's perfect;
            it's just more perfect than others.

            ...edN
          • ed nixon
            This is great news; nice to hear. All the best with the next release. And, by the way, don t forget the old price descrimination trick: is NS4 is more
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 9, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              This is great news; nice to hear. All the best with the next release.
              And, by the way, don't forget the old "price descrimination" trick: is
              NS4 is more expensive to support, that should be reflected in all of the
              price structures and cost estimates. That as the stick and the improved
              functionality as the carrot should be able to accomplish a lot for you.

              cheers. ...edN

              Nancy (Paisner) Harrison wrote:
              > Don't get me wrong; we are absolutely supporting NS 7 in our next release,
              > and it
              > will presumably be our 'recommended' support level, because 4.7x is old and
              > doesn't
              > provide support for a lot of functionality we want to use. We absolutely
              > see the release
              > of a usable modern version of NS as an opportunity. It's just that we
              > could never go to
              > NS 6, and therefore couldn't dump support for NS 4.7x till NS 7 had been
              > out for a while.
              >
              > - Nancy
              >
              > At 06:15 PM 9/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
              >
              >>I suppose it's naive to see the availability of NS7 as an opportunity.
              >>Presumably its benefits could be made to be seen as obvious: standards
              >>compliance, accessibility opportunities, application development
              >>platform, lower knowledge management costs. Perhaps it could be used as
              >>part of your pitch to new clients (as well as the dream success vehicle
              >>for the executive in charge. :)
              >>
              >> ...edN
              >>
              >>Nancy (Paisner) Harrison wrote:
              >>
              >>>It may well be that companies *should* be moving towards NS 7, but as a
              >>
              >>company
              >>
              >>>developing enterprise software for companies much bigger than we are, we
              >>>have no
              >>>choice but to support the browsers they tell us they're using, at least
              >>>till NS 7 has
              >>>been out long enough for them to adopt it company-wide. My point is that,
              >>>whatever
              >>>its faults, and it certainly has lots, there was no credible replacement
              >>>for NS 4.7x
              >>>until NS 7 came out. We tried to move up to support NS 6.x over a
              >>
              >>couple of
              >>
              >>>releases and were never able to because of its defects.
              >>>
              >>>Regards,
              >>>
              >>>- Nancy
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>At 05:01 PM 9/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>>Nancy (Paisner) Harrison wrote:
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>>David,
              >>>>>
              >>>>>So are you supporting development aimed at NS 4.78 but not 4.77?
              >>>>
              >>>>Is there a significant difference? My understanding is that new releases
              >>>>of 4.x versions of Netscape are bug-fixes to address security issues and
              >>>>are required by contractual obligations between Netscape and (how many
              >>>>can there be?) customers. There are no new features introduced nor, I
              >>>>gather, are there fixes applied to the extremely faulty and delapidated
              >>>>parsing and display code.
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>>Since Mozilla has officially been out only a short time, I wouldn't expect
              >>>>>support for NS 4.7x to be removed based on its existence. Software
              >>>>>obsolescence typically is a function not of the age of the software to be
              >>>>>obsoleted, but the age of its successor software. In this case, NS 4.78+
              >>>>>has been around for quite a while, but Mosilla, as you say, was released
              >>>>>quite recently.
              >>>>
              >>>>This is an interesting and likely controvertial question. If, for
              >>>>example, a company's policy supports the Netscape alternative to
              >>>>Internet Explorer, it would seem to me *that* company should be trying
              >>>>to hussle its users away from Netscape 4.x toward Netscape 7.0 as
              >>>>quickly as possible. This, in order to try to stem the flow of their
              >>>>users away from MS (if there are any left who have not left the barn by
              >>>>now.)
              >>>>
              >>>>In reality and in my experience, browser use policies in companies are a
              >>>>shambles with most people using whichever browser they please. I've even
              >>>>seen absurd situations where the nominal, official browser standard is
              >>>>Netscape while, at the same time, major enterprise-wide HR Web
              >>>>applications are developed in such a way as to require Internet
              >>>>Explorer! I suppose it would be uncharitable to say that these types of
              >>>>companies, of which there are many, deserve to be penalized for poor
              >>>>management via excessive costs and content chaos but we are not
              >>>>uncharitable on this list.
              >>>>
              >>>>In a real sense, Mozilla and Netscape 7.0 have withstood more and more
              >>>>focussed, detailed scrutiny in terms of reliability, security and
              >>>>standards compliance than any other browser product because of the
              >>>>length and openess of the development process.
              >>>>
              >>>>I am biased of course because Mozilla 1.1 is by primary browser but I
              >>>>*will* say it is more reliable in every sense than any of the
              >>>>alternatives. If I were king, I'd suggest strongly that people just get
              >>>>a move on and upgrade if, for no other reason, than to save themselves
              >>>>the aggrovation of the inconsistencies and lack of standardization. To
              >>>>be fair, IE 6.0 is very respectable in terms of its standards compliance
              >>>>but it fails as a genuine cross-platform product and may eventually fail
              >>>>further as a Web application platform, as well because of security and
              >>>>privacy concerns.
              >>>>
              >>>>Regards. ...edN
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
              >>>>Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
              >>>>Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
              >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
              >>>>
              >>>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>________________________
              >>>Nancy (Paisner) Harrison
              >>>Rational Software
              >>>Lexington MA
              >>>nancyh@...
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
              >>>Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
              >>>Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >>>Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
              >>>Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
              >>>Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
              >>>Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
              >>>Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
              >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
              >>>
              >>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>-------------------------------------------------------------------
              >>Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
              >>Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >>Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
              >>Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
              >>Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
              >>Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
              >>Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
              >>-------------------------------------------------------------------
              >>
              >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________
              > Nancy (Paisner) Harrison
              > Rational Software
              > Lexington MA
              > nancyh@...
              >
              >
              > -------------------------------------------------------------------
              > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@yahoogroups.com
              > Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@yahoogroups.com
              > Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@yahoogroups.com
              > Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@yahoogroups.com
              > Make changes via Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
              > Read archived messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/xml-doc/
              > -------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.