Sent by Chris Casciano on 30 January 2003 19:07
on 1/30/03 1:34 PM, Stephanie Sullivan at [EMAIL-REMOVED] wrote:
> on 1/30/03 9:03 AM, [EMAIL-REMOVED] at [EMAIL-REMOVED] wrote:
>
>> Yarg! Joe said *that*? Either iCab's changed a whole lot since the last
>> time I checked it or someone's quoting Joe out of context. (The third
>> option, that Joe could be *that* far wrong, doesn't pass the boggle test.)
>
> I agree... But since I don't have his book yet, I'll copy in here what my
> client quotes from the book:
>
> "Joe Clark classifies iCab as one of the standards-compliant browsers:
> 'Wherever possible, upgrade to a standards-compliant browser anything from
> Lynx to Opera to Explorer to Mozilla to iCab to Netscape 6.'"
>
> Weird, eh?
>
>
No, by no means would I classify it as weird. iCab is a very compliant
browser when it comes to the specs it says it supports. Unlike NN4 & OmniWeb
its not a matter of stuff that's broken, its more about stuff that¹s not
implemented. It does what it says it does and it does it well. There's a BIG
difference there in my mind. For one, as a developer it is still clear what
they've given to me to work with. Additionally, it provides a clearer choice
for those end users who want to make informed decisions about what browser
they use - "Which is more important to me, running a browser that supports
CSS2 or one that runs at a reasonable speed on my beige g3?"
There's lots of specs/recommendations out there:
HTML
XTHML
XML
XSLT
CSS1
CSS2
EcmaScript
DOM level 2
SVG
SMIL
PNG
MathML
... browsers like iCab and Lynx support a different subset of these
standards and do that well. As such I don't have much of a problem with
Joe's statement.
--
[ Chris Casciano ] [ [EMAIL-REMOVED] ]
[ see things @ http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words @ http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]
[ buy prints @ http://placenamehere.com/store ]