You must have missed all of NN 2, 3, and, and 4 then. This also badly misrepresents IE6 vs 5.5 and 4 which were the path-breakers. If anything, 6 was change towards conciliation.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi
By then the damage was done, and couldn't be undone without breaking tons of existing sites. And so we're *still* dealing with the repercussions 20 years on. This is where the blowback comes from. Call it an overreaction, maybe, but it's not without cause.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Nobody is fetishizing standards for their own sake. It's just honest concern that another powerful company with > 80% market share risks repeating the mistakes of the last one. It's great that Google wants to push the web forward. But some critical pushback is also healthy.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JLunman @ChrisFerdinandi
"the damage" was that MSFT stopped investing. IE6, on day 0, was *far and away* the world's best browser. It gave us most of today's web development jobs. And you know what? It treated properties and attrs the same. Literally fixed the thing that the standard subsequently broke
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @JLunman
With IE6, MS also just did whatever the fuck they wanted outside of a standards process. This response from you unfortunately very telling. I don't know if you were around for the browser wars or not, but it feels like you didn't learn from them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @JLunman
Did you ever develop anything on/for NN4? It was the concurrent competition during the IE4-6 dev cycles. Counterfactuals matter. Netscape did what they damned well pleased, and it was horrifying.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
MSFTs CSS impl was vastly better. Their DOM had warts, but was also closer to the eventual spec than anything Netscape released. Folks want to dress up '02-07 as though MSFT had done something to subvert standards...reality: they'd stopped investing.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @JLunman
"Folks want to dress up '02-07 as though MSFT had done something to subvert standards...reality: they'd stopped investing." Are these functionally different?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @slightlylate @JLunman
In what way? I'm not sure intent matters if the result is the same: legacy apps that only work in one browser... kind of like Chrome only apps, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is really draining. Homework questions, then: 1.) How would the NN3.2 90+% share moment have been different if Netscape's engine had been OSS? If trident had been? 2.) Why don't modern browsers implement XBL2 or XForms? 3.) Why isn't Gecko the basis for many browsers?
-
-
Bonus question: define "first mover disadvantage" and use it in a sentence.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.