Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15459)	12/23/1997 4:35:00 PM
From: Justin Banks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reg - Is Javascript in the specs? Not the HTML ones, I dare say. The <script> tag is, though. Javascript is under a different set of RFCs, I believe. CSS HTML 4.0 isn't older. AFAIK, CSS isn't in an older spec. Of course, unlike you, I could be wrong. <layers> Can you elaborate here? What rogue use? -justinb

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15459)	12/24/1997 12:49:00 AM
From: Keith Hankin	Respond to of 24154

>>> Is Javascript in the specs? Yes, but it is called ECMAScript. NSCP came out with JavaScript before there was a standard, so it is not surprising that JavaScript does not comply with the ECMAScript standard. But I believe that that is changing -- NSCP is aligning JavaScript with the ECMAScript standard. >>> As for older specs, compare the implementation of CSS I believe that CSS is largely a MSFT-introduced concept, borrowing from their work with Word. Thus it is not surprising that they have a better implementation earlier on. >>> NSCP's rogue use of the <layers> tag. And what about MSFT's rogue use of DHTML, Active-X, etc?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (15459)	12/30/1997 11:47:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

infoworld.com HTML 4.0 adds support for advanced forms, in-line frames, and enhanced tables, as well as support for objects, scripts, and style sheets, according to representatives at the W3C. Many of the functions were developed by Microsoft for its DHTML and then submitted for consideration by the standards body. It appears that the reason that MSFT is closer (at least in some aspects) to the HTML 4.0 spec is because many of the proposed specs that got adopted were proposed by MSFT, based upon code that they already had working. Thus it is not a matter of MSFT implementing standards faster than NSCP but of MSFT being more effective at getting their proprietary extensions adopted as the standard.