Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board

Mozilla might be committing suicide.

Mozilla does not support Internet Explorer javascript extensions such as document.all, window.event and some others. The result is that many pages do not work with Mozilla.

At present, Internet Explorer accounts for about 91 % of web access. Therefore, most web developers test their pages with Internet Explorer only. Therefore, the web pages they develop often contain Javascript code that does not work with Mozilla.

My experience in Spain is painful. Mozilla is locked out almost all commercial web servers. For instance, blocks mozilla by the usage of document.all; (one of largest banks in Spain) uses a regular expression not supported by Mozilla; requires HTMLElement.outerHTML ; (the leading Spanish airlines) requires either document.all or Netscape 4.x document.layers

I wrote a patch that partially fixes those problems, and allows me to work with the sites that I need. I also posted a request for enhancement through the Mozilla bug tracking system ( ) Unfortunately, it has very few chances of being accepted. Some opposition is well founded (some pages check for the existence of document.all for using more extensions, and therefore my patch is not enough. However, this problem can be solved. Most of the opposition is purely religous. Bob Clary, manager of the "Tech Evangelism" (whose job is to evangelize web developers to make pages that work with Mozilla) thinks that implementing these extensions would "do harm the web at large" (see comment #30 in the link above). It seems that they cannot accept that they have no influence on what is used on the web.

What do you think?

Note: if you want to add a comment in the bug tracking page you need to be registered in the bugzilla tracking system, at

Saturday, June 29, 2002

"Mozilla might be committing suicide"? You're assuming it was ever alive and relevant to begin with.

If you believe that Mozilla has "no influence on what is used on the web", then why bother caring about Mozilla at all? But if you believe that Mozilla can make a difference, then why not respect the decisions of the engineers who deliberetly chose not to implement this feature?

Personally, I agree with you that Mozilla will never support Microsoft extensions, and until it does, it will never be useful -- but that topic has already been hashed to death. No need to go in to it again.

Another Coward
Saturday, June 29, 2002

> "Mozilla might be committing suicide"? You're assuming it was > ever alive and relevant to begin with.

A large number of users (Linux, most Unix systems and partially Apple) are in fact excluded from the Web. In addition, although the number of users of Mozilla is low now this could change. And I think that it is beneficial to have an independent web browser that blocks the addition of even more extensions, in the same way Apache blocks the addition of propietary extensions to the HTTP protocol.

Saturday, June 29, 2002

Mozilla Who? :-)

Prakash S
Saturday, June 29, 2002

If you want a variety of browsers to check your sites on, head on over to where you'll find every browser ever released, available for downloading.

Helen Collins
Saturday, June 29, 2002

One of the problems, one of the many problems, with talking about Mozilla is that it isn't a parallel product to IE or even Opera.

Microsoft extensions aren't javascript extensions, they are variations on the DOM (Document Object Model). chose to only follow standards and not proprietary or novel adaptations, that included prior Netscape extensions.

For the most part issues with servers come down to badly written browser sniffing. 

As you say yourself you have some workarounds that do something for you, could you have achieved the same in IE?

Simon Lucy
Saturday, June 29, 2002

You're assuming that Mozilla development is motivated like IE development is, to take over the web. Perhaps this is not the case and what they want is to produce a standards complient browser without Microsoft extensions. If so they have succeeded. I don't think you should project your desires onto them. If Mozilla is dead, or irrelevant etc. as some posters seem to think then why does that matter to those posters? Much of the original open source stuff, i.e. perl, wasn't developed with the idea of getting market share or dethroning some existing system, if it later became very successful, e.g. perl, linux, apache then that's a side benefit.

Alex Moffat
Saturday, June 29, 2002

Replay to Alex Moffat:

I have a high respect for the intentions of the Mozilla developers of promoting standards. But I cannot understand how a browser that cannot be used for everyday life can help promote standards. It might be an interesting collection of bytes, where one can learn some lessons of software architecture.

The current situation is web authors see that 90 % of hits come from Internet Explorer => they develop content for Microsoft browser => users see that Mozilla/Netscape 6 does not work for their daily tasks => they stay with Internet Explorer => the loop starts again.

By contrast, if Mozilla supported Internet Explorer DOM extensions (yes, I said Javascript to simplify, since I patched Mozilla source code I should know that it is DOM, right?) many users could test it. With the adequate promotion by AOL, it could achieve a respectable share, say 10 %. Now web authors would avoid being incompatible with it.

Therefore the best strategy for promoting standards is to be compatible with Internet Explorer.

Saturday, June 29, 2002

Three remarks:

Being fully compatible with IE is just as suicidal for Mozilla as being incompatible with it - trying to play catch with Microsoft does not usually work. The compatiblity issue ISN'T what's going to determine whether Mozilla is accepted or not  - it's the clueless-install base. Most users don't actually know if they're using IE or Netscape - they use whatever browser was installed when they bought their machine (which is, at present, IE). If they had bought a machine preinstalled with Moz, that's what they'd be using. It's the early adopters that eventually determine what becomes preinstalled[1], and they DO like mozilla, for many good reasons (such as tabbed browsing, sane permission system, etc.) - some of them especially BECAUSE they want a standards compliant browser.

Second, I live in Israel, where 99% of the sites are written and tested solely with IE in mind; Yet, I use Mozilla and rarely have to launch IE. Apparently, the Israeli community whether it is aware or not stays close enough to the standards that most sites work - and that's how it should be. I also visit a lot of American and British sites, and in the last 6 months in which I'm using Mozilla almost exclusively, I've never had IE handle a site better than Moz.

Third, don't downplay AOL's ability to make Moz popular. Nothing is assured, and they aren't rushing there, but they have the will and they have the means; It seems that recently, of all possibilities, WalMart (!)  might be giving a big push in that direction. But it'll take a year or so before we'll be able to tell.

[1] Well, early adopters, and Microsoft licensing terms, which are part of the still-running antitrust case.

Ori Berger
Saturday, June 29, 2002

>But I cannot understand how a browser that cannot be used for everyday life can help promote standards.

Maybe a browser having less than 10% share  of users can hardly help promoting standards. But at least they are promoting. If they implements the MS "extensions", they will have to follow every lead by MS. And that's just the opposite of promoting standards.

Sam Wong
Saturday, June 29, 2002

Well I went to the website and did not have any trouble getting flight schedules. I also went to with Opera Netscape and Konqueror. None of those would work with the site. My solution; go to another computer site.  I have also used Konqureor / Mozilla to order books online and computer accessories with no problem.
Hey, as for the posters who down Mozilla as being irrelevant, I could care less. All that counts is that Mozilla works with the Linux compatible sites. That is where the action is. The source code and rpms are there. The Windows religious zealots have the notion that we should have to pay for overpriced buggy crap. That is exactly what it is. Microsoft is just as bad as IBM was, back in the late 80's. I am not going to put up with that. Besides my Linux box comes with Cad, two nice spreadsheets (that import Excel BTW), a symbolic algebra programme, two MatLab clones, a curve fitting package, a set of scientific C routines, assorted mp3 players, RealPlayer, a SQL data base, a finite element programme, molecular viewers for pdb and mdl formats, vector drawing programmes, a LaTeX editor and lots of nice games. Not to mention that I have Perl, ADA95, Python, JAVA, FORTRAN, C++, Smalltalk and TCL/TK.  So - heh - what if is inaccessible. There are thousands of apps to take the place of what they may offer.

You developer guys make a tragic mistake: that the end users want mindless click and point simplicity. That was a safe assumption in 1987 but not now a days.

Saturday, June 29, 2002

From a web application development perspective...

It's a tragedy that IE, Netscape 5, Netscape 6, Opera, and now Mozilla have different DOM's.

The fact that 10% of our users have a non-compatible DOM with IE leads to endless extra development and testing hours for I and my coworkers.  (at least for JavaScript heavy sites like ours).  Combined with minor incompatibilities in HTML interpretation regarding tables and fonts this leads to significantly extra cost and a slower time to get sites online. 

Incidentally, I believe that many sites do not have high standards for cross-browser javascript compatibility (due to the time it takes to get it right).  I see minor problems with bad fonts and javascript errors all the time on other sites and the occasional major failure.  (Using both IE and Netscape).  While experienced computer users may disregard (even not notice) the occasional flaw this can be quite disconcerting to regular users.

And in response to the previous writer who complained about buggy Microsoft code... get over it!  I switched to IE years ago after Netscape crashed time and again (and found it, not perfect but a very stable platform).  Discuss the real issues, don't post mindless rhetoric!

Will Glass-Husain
Saturday, June 29, 2002

Hey Will:

It was not mindless rhetoric. It's only mindless rhetoric to you guys who feed at the Microsoft trough.You keep your high priced virus delivery system, OK.
The issue here is why certain websites are not accessable with Mozilla. My response is I don't care. I want to have a choice as to what I use for computing. If that choice enables me to have more valuable software at the expense of browser compatibility then so be it. What am I gonna see at those Microsoft sites? More adverts and fluff?  Maybe the open standards are better. The fact that they are subject to public scrutiny might make for better security. 

Saturday, June 29, 2002

We either need to revolt against MS and use competitors products, or embrace them and use only there stuff.  They are slowly taking over the internet.  We either need to admit defeat and give it to them or use someone else's products.

This you need IE shit is getting on my nerves.

My fondest wish is that AOL actually switches.  Then a whole bunch of sites will be broken, and with 34 million customers gone the site owners might be persuaded to fix them.  Without AOL switching it is up to the 5% of people that use browsers other than IE to try to bitch enough to get the sites to change.  CLUE (it ain't gonna happen, unless AOL switches.)

Sunday, June 30, 2002

Ah, where once threads of discussion always ended up at 'you're a Nazi', 'no, you are', such were the heady innocent days of the past.

Simon Lucy
Sunday, June 30, 2002

>And in response to the previous writer who complained about buggy Microsoft code... get over it! I switched to IE years ago after Netscape crashed time and again (and found it, not perfect but a very stable platform). Discuss the real issues, don't post mindless rhetoric!

I have a question: is there any systematical and objective comparison of the stability of IE and Netscape or other browsers, on different OS?

Sam Wong
Sunday, June 30, 2002

>>...and lots of nice games.

Yeah, right. Like Shock the monkey banner ad. Hahaha.

Szasz Attila
Monday, July 1, 2002

may the gods help us...

microsfot is evil!

no its not!

yes it is!

...this is the conversation of a deranged drongo on mind altering drugs, surely not the stuff that we came here to read (and write)?...

..I often wonder where these people come happens on mailing lists as apparently normal mailing list starts a slightly controversial topic and suddenly all the deranged maniacs come out of the woodwork and begin a debate on which of them is less intelligent...

Monday, July 1, 2002

...I often wonder where these people come from
------------------------------------------------------------- Yawn

I'm still waiting for them to start knocking doors.  Linux witnesses getting me out of the bath on a saturday morning to quote Man pages at me.

Ged Byrne
Monday, July 1, 2002

Ramon, I belive the best thing to do is to petition the websites to modify their code to support Mozilla.  You can even send them a sample javascript code that will work with Mozilla.  If their site is done well, the code is probably reused so it won't be too ahrd to fix it.  If enough users complain they'll have to fix the code or lose them as customers.

Monday, July 1, 2002

"If enough users complain they'll have to fix the code or lose them as customers. "

Uhhhh 90% plus of their user base currently won't see the problem and complain. I think thats the point.

Of course, its poor customer service to piss off 5-10% of your customers for no good reason but I'm guessing that out of every 100 page views, 6 fail because of this, and 2 of them write and complain. Its easy for the wrong kind of company to tune that out.

Robert Moir
Monday, July 1, 2002

I strongly believe Mozilla is going to gain some market share. Probably not much, mind you, but enough to make webmaster's habits to change again. And if some site is using stupid and buggy javascript code that makes that page unusable for anybody except for those using the latest IE release, probably is not worth a visit.

(hope my english is clear enough)


Leonardo Herrera
Monday, July 1, 2002

IE 5 and 6 have standards support that is comparable to Mozilla's.  Each of the browsers have their shortcomings, but they do a good job supporting the basics: HTML, CSS and ECMAScript.

I have never had to re-write a page that worked in IE 5+ to make it work in Mozilla.  If you write according to the standards, anyone can see your web page, regardless of the browser they use (well, except for Netscape 4, which you actually need to hide your CSS from).

Is it really that much harder to type 'document.getElementById' and it is to type 'document.all'?  That right there will fix almost all of your Mozilla-IE incompatibilities, in my experience.

And, the Mozilla team was even kind enough to provide web developers with Microsoft's proprietary '.innerHTML', and to mirror as best they could Microsoft's proprietary XML handling stuff.

I hate to add to this horrible thread, but I felt the need to say something.

Will M
Monday, July 1, 2002

Will. M.

You are right. But it seems that most pages are written by idiots working in cheap consultories. There is not reason to use document.all. document.getElementById is supported in IE 5.x , Mozilla and easy to emulate in IE 4.x.

Monday, July 1, 2002

I'd hardly call that Mozilla commiting suicide. The owners of those sites, sure. Personally, I think and hope that Moz will gain a lot more browser share. It's a great browser.Especially with extensions like optimoz. It's like taking the things I loved about Opera and adding them into a kickarse (for rendering stuff) browser.

Also, I believe that with more and more people switching over to CSS for site design that a lot of people who use browsers other than Moz will see inferior versions of the site. not unusable, but inferior. for instance my site. It renders fine in IE / Opera, but it only renders as it's supposed to in mozilla. It's perfectly fine for IE and Opera users, but Moz users get that little bit more.

Also, once some users start to use the other features that differentiate Moz, I think a lot of them might start viral marketing for the thing. Stuff like the ability to block pop-up windows out of the box, tabbed browsing and mouse gestures like Opera but without the ad, themes even are all ways of Moz differentiating itself from the competition. On top of that, more extra projects for Moz enhancements will start to appear, such as the mouse gestures one, and people will be able to pick and match what they want in a web browser. I could of course be wrong about all this though.

Tuesday, July 2, 2002

Not *all* major spanish sites exclude Mozilla.

Take a look at

Tuesday, July 2, 2002

Hey guys! We've produced this incredible new video recorder! It has built-in Dolby 5.1, can fit 18 hours onto a 3 hour tape with no quality loss, washes the dishes, mows the lawn, but because we're anally retentive die-hards, it's Betamax only. Yes we know everybody uses VHS but Beta was much better technically, and we don't want to support VHS because, er, we wouldn't be 'different' enough then.

Religious wars are soooo boring. They just go on and on and on and on until finally the zealots realise the rest of the world has moved on and left them behind.

Tuesday, July 2, 2002


I wonder how can you be so stupid?

Tuesday, July 2, 2002

I wonder how you can be so constructive.

Robert Moir
Wednesday, July 3, 2002

I rarely do this, but DB has missed the entire point of the conversation.  There were no flames or religious wars in this thread and his post was compeltely offtopic with a touch of troll and flamebait.

Wednesday, July 3, 2002

How was your response to him any different?

Joe AA.
Wednesday, July 3, 2002

I should have known better but just couldn't help myself.  I wish this forum had some kind of moderation.

Wednesday, July 3, 2002

If there was, your reply to mine would have disappeared pretty quick I imagine.

No flames or religious wars in this thread?

"It's only mindless rhetoric to you guys who feed at the Microsoft trough."

Just one example. My point was that it's utterly pointless creating something 'better' than something MOST people already use, if it has flaws that make it unuseable for many of them. You can bang on about standards as much as you like but the most important standards to the USER are de facto ones, not those dreamt up by those who are out of touch with what users actually want.

Do please bang on about nothing in particular if it makes you feel good.

Thursday, July 4, 2002

"Moderation" is censorship.  Why post if you are only going to be censored?

And on the news... "today, just like yesterday, and it is predicted for tomorrow - everyone on the fog creek bulletin board was in complete agreement about everything"

Yeah, right!!

Joe AA.
Friday, July 5, 2002

The fact that Microsoft can take a standard, alter it, and use their large market share to break applications that adhere only to the standard bothers me. The whole idea of locking people out of the web sickens me and should sicken anyone reading this thread.

Ramón García makes a good point about Mozilla needing to support Microsoft standards from an engineering/market-share point of view. People should look at this from an ethical point of view as well.

Friday, July 5, 2002

I really don't understand what you consider to be an ethical issue with Microsoft business practices.  Their customers make them work, they are filling the desires of their customers.

If Mozilla or anyone else wants to compete, they need to produce a better product.  Not just "technically" better, but better in the eyes of the customer.

Joe AA.
Sunday, July 7, 2002

"I really don't understand what you consider to be an ethical issue with Microsoft business practices. Their customers make them work, they are filling the desires of their customers."

I do not understand you. There is no contradiction between saying that Microsoft business practics are unethical and saying that their products sell well. This is like saying that ethical is a synonymous of sucessful.

I believe that trying to tie customers to one's products is unethical; customers should be free to choose. Therefore, extending DHTML so that web pages cannot be read by Mozilla is an unethical strategy. I think that this is pretty obvious.

Monday, July 8, 2002

Customers are free to choose, which is why it is ethical.

Being in business does not mean "playing on a level field".  That business is some kind of board game (ok, that pun intended also) where breaking a rule of the game means you automatically lose.  In sports games, rules are broken even if a penality exists, if a player or team can get ahead.  Business is even more cut-throat than sports, and just slightly less tamer in terms of competition than WAR!!

Microsoft is not violating any ethics by extending the capability of it's own product.  Microsoft is under no obligation (that I know of) to update it's products based on a poll of their competitors.

Mozilla is under no obligation to be compatible with Microsoft products - if they chose to be, then they automatically place themselves in position of a follower.

Joe AA.
Monday, July 8, 2002

Replay to previous post.

"Customers are free to choose, which is why it is ethical."

The essence of Microsoft strategy consists blocking users' choice. If a page only works with Internet Explorer, the user
can no longer choose.

"Business is even more cut-throat than sports, and just slightly less tamer in terms of competition than WAR!!"

Excuses, excuses.

The ethics of a company depends on the character of the people who make decissions. Nothing else.

There are people like Richard Stallman who make being ethical so important that refuse to write propietary software. For him, a better business is not an excuse for restricting
people's freedom. While I do not share that point of view, I
have a lot of respect for his consistency.

In the middle ground, there are pragmatic people who have
made successful companies and have behaved ethically.
For example when ID Software released the source code
of Quake there had absolutely no business reason to do so.
It was purely for promoting technological progress of games.

Compare this with Microsoft, that has even enforced copyright against abandonware sites that offered Windows 3.0 for download.

Microsoft has shown an unusually agresive
attitude. This is clearly illustrated by the sentence of Microsoft's senior vice-president Mike Maples (1991):

"If someone thinks we're not after Lotus, and after WordPerfect and after Borland, they're confused... My job is to get a fair share of the software applications market, and to me that's 100 percent".

Wednesday, July 10, 2002

"The essence of Microsoft strategy consists blocking users' choice. If a page only works with Internet Explorer, the user
can no longer choose"

So Microsoft sets up all web sites?

Sorry, but it is not "unethical" to be competitive - regardless of degree, and it is not "unethical" NOT to follow your competitors in their attempts or to seek their approval.

Joe AA.
Thursday, July 11, 2002

Having just wandered into here, as a member of the Mozilla community (and one of the commentors in the bug), I feel I should lay to rest some of the misinformation that's floating through this discussion (although some of it has been brought up by other posters).

First of all, Mozilla Evangelism. How many of you pictured a Guy Kawasaki type raving about the wonderfulness of browsing with Mozilla? Uh-huh. Well, that's not it. When someone files a report in Bugzilla that a website is broken, and it turns out to be "the website's fault" (i.e., the website used either some proprietary extension or took advantage of what is technically a rendering bug in earlier browsers), the bug gets moved into the Tech Evangelism component. Eventually, one of the Evangelism people writes the website a polite letter explaining why their site broke and how to fix it. They also work with tool and template vendors (DHTML menus, etc.), write articles on how webmasters can fix the most common problems, and so forth. In short, they're the *least* likely people in the Mozilla community to be foolishly religious--the more websites that work in Mozilla, the easier their job is.

And two of our top Tech Evangelism people have indeed spoken out against this, and for a very good reason. Like it or not, "if (document.all)" is now the de facto test for Internet Explorer in people's DHTML, and supporting it now would cause virtually every browser-sniffing DHTML script on the web to misdetect Mozilla as Internet Explorer. So committing to document.all means committing to more or less the entire IE DOM, to avoid creating more problems than we solve.

Now, maybe this still sounds relatively easy--go read the specs on MSDN, you self-righteous Mozilla freaks, and build a useful browser. Unfortunately, there are two big lessons to be learned from trying to build a spec-compliant browser (regardless of who issued the spec):
1) The spec is never good enough.
2) To a web designer, bugs are features.
1) should be clear enough--Mozilla development has threshed out a bundle of ambiguities in the CSS2 spec, and I'm sure the results would be even more impressive with the IE DOM, which is rather fugly in comparison with the W3C DOM specs. 2) sounds a bit more puzzling, but really it's just a natural consequence of the way web developers work--what the browser-of-choice does *is* the spec. So when that bug gets fixed and the browser starts laying out according to spec, the site breaks.

So this would shift the burden from the relatively easy job of Tech Evangelism (email someone and help rewrite their DHTML) into the coding sector, and not only chew up coding time to chase after IE idiosyncracies, but create a permanent maintenance problem in our codebase. Then the next version of IE is released, people start slapping its new extensions into their scripts...and so it goes. In the long run, putting yourself in the position of perpetually playing catch-up to a competitor is not a healthy one at all.

To cover a few other tidbits:

This is actually a relatively minor issue wrt Mozilla adoption. The major reason people are reluctant to pick up Mozilla and derivatives (other than the horrible botch that was NS 6.0) is that the development process takes all the evils of Open Source UI and enhances them through corporate cluelessness. (Like leaving out popup blocking in NS 7, despite the fact that it's one of the most-praised features of Mozilla, for fear of offending advertisers.) Look at <URL:> and its link to Macintosh browser statistics--IE certainly hasn't managed to lock that market down.

"It's a tragedy that IE, Netscape 5, Netscape 6, Opera, and now Mozilla have different DOM's.".  Um, the Netscape 6 DOM *is* the Mozilla DOM, modulo bugfixes, and there is no Netscape 5 (unless you meant NS 4).  The real tragedy is that people insist on using the IE DOM to do things which could be written in the W3C DOM and run on NS6, IE, and probably Opera.

Chris Hoess
Thursday, July 11, 2002

First of all, I reject that I have given any misinformation. I have exposed all the facts, and therefore I have been honest.

I exposed both legitimate drawbacks on implementing document.all "(some pages check for the existence of document.all for using more extensions)". I also exposed
clearly what the Tech Evangelism is: "(whose job is to evangelize web developers to make pages that work with Mozilla) ".

I hope this is clarified.

Next, the relevant matter.

You use three arguments:

1) It is difficult to build an exact emulation. This is true, but it
is not enough. More on later.

2) MSIE is a moving target. I disagree. More on later.

3) The job of Tech Evangelism is easy. I disagree.

You still have the dynamic of the market working:
95 % people use Internet Explorer =>
webmasters check their logs => they test their pages
for Internet Explorer => many pages do not work with Mozilla => users refuse to use Mozilla.

First of all, we must **acknowledge** this dynamic. If we cannot solve it, that is no excuse, because the dynamic is still there.

I think that most scripts use fixed patterns of use. Therefore
a 80% emulation is enough. It will not work with all pages, only most of them. My experience seems to agree, but I acknowledge, (and I did so state in my comments) that extensive testing must be done to ensure that the
emulation is really useful.

But let us suppose that I am wrong, that you need 99 % emulation including bug emulation to fix most pages designed
with Internet Explorer in mind. Again, there is no excuse to
ignore the dynamic of the market. We must either  implement 99 % emulation or, if we do not have the resources, be honest
with AOL and suggest them to spend their money for something different than Mozilla. So I do not want to believe
that 99% emulation is needed.

2) There is a misunderstanding of the dynamic of the market.
Even if Microsoft releases a new version with new extensions,
webmasters will refuse to use them, because that would break
uses who did not update. One evidence: how many Window
applications do require something higher that Windows 95? Very few vendors would self-restrict their market in that silly

You say that trying to emulate Microsoft products is not
a good strategy. Show me one example where *not* emulating
Microsoft products has been a good strategy. For example,
AmigaOS, BeOS, Apple, Linux on the desktop side, ...

3) Contrary to what you might believe, I have a lot of respect
for the Tech Evangelism people. I think that it would be great
to get all the web pages to be converted to standards.
Why wouldn't webmasters accept free consulting help?
For internal political and practical reasons, very few developers of impotant sites would listen them. In a commercial site, any change, even if it is a small one, requires extensive testing before approved. Why would one invest any resources in a browser that takes only 1 % of share? And what interest has a developer in acknowledging that he has not done a good job first? 

The fact that you attempt to convince someone of doing
something does not mean that you will succeed. People
have their own motivations, economical, ideological, ...
There is no silver bullet that can turn all the webmasters
into supporters of web standards. They may prefer to get
the job done sooner.

Let me emphasize that I tried to "evangelize" all the sites that
I need. I finally succeded with, which is very unusual because they have full time programmers rather than rely on consutories. Even so, the update took about two weeks.

Finally, scalability is against the Tech Evangelism. The size of their job grows with the number of sites in the Internet which is
very large. By contrast, modifying Mozilla source is a task
that one must only do once.

I hope that  I have clarified my opinion.

Wednesday, July 17, 2002

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home