The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4270449.stm[/URL]
Some good news then, hopefully it'll make a difference.
Some good news then, hopefully it'll make a difference.
Page:
cjh wrote:
> Garin wrote:
>
>
>
>
I must say you have a rare talent for answering questions and points that were never posed in the first place and then wandering off on tangents.
EDIT: At the very least, go and look up the history of VHS. VHS is the victor of a "standards battle", it had competition.
> Garin wrote:
>
>
>
>
I must say you have a rare talent for answering questions and points that were never posed in the first place and then wandering off on tangents.
EDIT: At the very least, go and look up the history of VHS. VHS is the victor of a "standards battle", it had competition.
I would have thought that would depend on if it is implemented as a service pack 3, or a standalone application.
I don't think it is too late for Microsoft, though it does seem that security is more a priority, but that isn't a bad thing.
I don't think it is too late for Microsoft, though it does seem that security is more a priority, but that isn't a bad thing.
Nah, I doubt it somehow.
Anyway, it's not like everyone will even convert to IE7. Sure, it's a step in the right general direction, but will it make a big difference? Nah.
Anyway, it's not like everyone will even convert to IE7. Sure, it's a step in the right general direction, but will it make a big difference? Nah.
cjh wrote:
> Tyla wrote:
> IE7 is too little too late
>
> I don't think it's ever to late, as the Internet doesn't have a best
> before date, does it :)
>
> I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt, I think they could
> suprise us.
I was refering more to their reputation for lack of co-operation to non-M$ reccomendations! They'd have to do something special to impress the design/coding communtiy to edge back support for M$ as a credible platform for delivering standrds based sites.
Maybe your right, maybe M$ will start singing from the same songsheet, but I feel this is more to do with security than supporting suggested standards
> Tyla wrote:
> IE7 is too little too late
>
> I don't think it's ever to late, as the Internet doesn't have a best
> before date, does it :)
>
> I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt, I think they could
> suprise us.
I was refering more to their reputation for lack of co-operation to non-M$ reccomendations! They'd have to do something special to impress the design/coding communtiy to edge back support for M$ as a credible platform for delivering standrds based sites.
Maybe your right, maybe M$ will start singing from the same songsheet, but I feel this is more to do with security than supporting suggested standards
Tyla wrote:
> IE7 is too little too late
I don't think it's ever to late, as the Internet doesn't have a best before date, does it :)
I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt, I think they could suprise us.
> IE7 is too little too late
I don't think it's ever to late, as the Internet doesn't have a best before date, does it :)
I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt, I think they could suprise us.
Garin wrote:
> Microsoft only believe in one standard, their own. :) So I wouldn't
> hold your breath about compliance with W3C (not that I'd necessarily
> say that was a bad thing anyway).
The W3C was set up by the great Tim Bernads Lee, the guy who invented the interweb. They were formed to try to ensure that the web conforms to a set list of reccomendations to ensure that the exchange and access of data remained uniform in a common set of languages/code/mark up, just like the standardisation of GIF's, JPEG's, SGML, TIFF etc etc.
M$ did try to implement some of the W3C reccomendations in IE4, then went a bit nuts with IE5 when they tried to take over the world with their own version of Javascript, dHTML and CSS (Just like Netscape did!). Effectively, M$ tried monopolising the internet to be as they wanted to see it, not for what it was originally designed for.
IE7 is too little too late, unless IE finally pulls their fingers out and agrees to adopt standards and implement them correctly like everyone else, then IMHO IE7 is just a pointless PR exercise to try and steal the thunder from Mozilla/Firefox/Opera & Netscape (NS8 has just gonr Beta BTW)
This makes interesting reading
[URL]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/[/URL]
Which just proves that M$ have no idea when it comes to working outside of the Microsoft methodology and really do need to step back and drop their "World Domination" approach to everything.
IE7 will be interesting to watch, and no doubt adopted by all M$ fanboys and ill educated users across the planet. Don't expect too much. Tabbed browsing at most on top of the token pop up blocker, ad blocker etc.
They need to make the browser more accessible, more compliant to standards (even basic HTML would be nice or even CSS2!) I could go on all day. Currently all I know is suddenly there will be another badly implemented browser to work for which requires hacks, tweaks and annoyances to accomodate
> Microsoft only believe in one standard, their own. :) So I wouldn't
> hold your breath about compliance with W3C (not that I'd necessarily
> say that was a bad thing anyway).
The W3C was set up by the great Tim Bernads Lee, the guy who invented the interweb. They were formed to try to ensure that the web conforms to a set list of reccomendations to ensure that the exchange and access of data remained uniform in a common set of languages/code/mark up, just like the standardisation of GIF's, JPEG's, SGML, TIFF etc etc.
M$ did try to implement some of the W3C reccomendations in IE4, then went a bit nuts with IE5 when they tried to take over the world with their own version of Javascript, dHTML and CSS (Just like Netscape did!). Effectively, M$ tried monopolising the internet to be as they wanted to see it, not for what it was originally designed for.
IE7 is too little too late, unless IE finally pulls their fingers out and agrees to adopt standards and implement them correctly like everyone else, then IMHO IE7 is just a pointless PR exercise to try and steal the thunder from Mozilla/Firefox/Opera & Netscape (NS8 has just gonr Beta BTW)
This makes interesting reading
[URL]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/[/URL]
Which just proves that M$ have no idea when it comes to working outside of the Microsoft methodology and really do need to step back and drop their "World Domination" approach to everything.
IE7 will be interesting to watch, and no doubt adopted by all M$ fanboys and ill educated users across the planet. Don't expect too much. Tabbed browsing at most on top of the token pop up blocker, ad blocker etc.
They need to make the browser more accessible, more compliant to standards (even basic HTML would be nice or even CSS2!) I could go on all day. Currently all I know is suddenly there will be another badly implemented browser to work for which requires hacks, tweaks and annoyances to accomodate
Garin wrote:
> Competition is always a good thing.
In terms of customer satisfaction, yes, but not in the case of building web sites for public viewing on a wide range of browsers / devices.
> To me allowing W3C to dictate web standards is no worse or
> better than allowing microsoft to.
It wouldn't matter if Microsoft were to dictate any standards, as they would be standard, everybody would build their web browsers to run such standards, while developers would know what would work.
But the W3C doesn’t do what they do for profit. They don't dictate any standards; they are only recommendations, but ones which have been adopted as web standards because they make sense.
Industries everywhere have common standards, its how things work well together and actually allow more competition, because companies don't have to re-create what already exists.
VHS, CD, DVD are all standards, yet many companies make each item. If there was not a common standard, you wouldn't be able to buy any CD you like from the shop and know it'll play on your CD player, you'd be limited to what type of media your CD player could play. A good thing?
If Microsoft were to cater for the accepted recommendations as web standards, then the Internet could become much more usable, accessible, and a lot less of a headache to build for.
> Competition is always a good thing.
In terms of customer satisfaction, yes, but not in the case of building web sites for public viewing on a wide range of browsers / devices.
> To me allowing W3C to dictate web standards is no worse or
> better than allowing microsoft to.
It wouldn't matter if Microsoft were to dictate any standards, as they would be standard, everybody would build their web browsers to run such standards, while developers would know what would work.
But the W3C doesn’t do what they do for profit. They don't dictate any standards; they are only recommendations, but ones which have been adopted as web standards because they make sense.
Industries everywhere have common standards, its how things work well together and actually allow more competition, because companies don't have to re-create what already exists.
VHS, CD, DVD are all standards, yet many companies make each item. If there was not a common standard, you wouldn't be able to buy any CD you like from the shop and know it'll play on your CD player, you'd be limited to what type of media your CD player could play. A good thing?
If Microsoft were to cater for the accepted recommendations as web standards, then the Internet could become much more usable, accessible, and a lot less of a headache to build for.
Same, but a standards compliant IE will do heaps of good for designers and devolopers alike.
Great news.
Great news.
Sorry - I'll still use Firefox.
Nimco wrote:
> Why would it be a good thing?
Competition is always a good thing. To me allowing W3C to dictate web standards is no worse or better than allowing microsoft to. Yes of course W3C has microsoft representatives but sometimes concensus doesn't lead anywhere and certainly isn't the best environment for innovation.
> Why would it be a good thing?
Competition is always a good thing. To me allowing W3C to dictate web standards is no worse or better than allowing microsoft to. Yes of course W3C has microsoft representatives but sometimes concensus doesn't lead anywhere and certainly isn't the best environment for innovation.
Page: