[WEB4LIB] RE:The beginning of the end for the Netscape Browser???

[Robert Tiess]

Thomas Dowling wrote:
>  I've never been very sympathetic to Netscape's plight.  They made their
>  name by running roughshod over the standards of the time, tacitly
>  encouraging developers to write pages that didn't work in other browsers,

This criticism is equally applicable to Internet Explorer, which certainly had/has/(will likely always have) its own many issues when implementing/adhering to/expanding upon web standards (e.g. Sun vs. Microsoft re Java).  Some random but relevant links:

 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2254214.html

 http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/welcome/dsmsdn/dude03262001.htm
   Nice little quote from this site right from Microsoft Corp.:
   "...because a standard exists, that does not mean Microsoft will
   automatically implement it. Microsoft will implement appropriate
   standards that we believe are useful to our customers."

 http://www.digital-web.com/features/feature_2000-5.shtml

 http://www.webstandards.org/faq1_n4.html

Comparable/more current information can be found at:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22internet%20explorer%22%20%22web%20standards%22

Both browser brands suffer from imcomplete standards compliance, party because each browser maker has sought to extend the web through proprietary means, such as JScript, ActiveX, and HTML tags that would not work in either browser.

Further complicating the standards compliance challenge for web developers and browser manufacturers is the rapid rate at which the web evolves.  For example, keeping pace with W3C.org recommendations, even for something like XML, challenges corporations and private programmers alike, because each new version of a technology establishes new features or methods and creates a growing list of "deprecations"--practices no longer supported or condoned by the latest version of the given technology.  Yet, to accommodate older web pages, major browsers need to maintain backward compatibility and are purposely made, as in the case of IE, to tolerate pages now deemed (under strict and current [X]HTML implementations) as non-compliant.  As long as the web evolves and standards organizations like W3C are frequently issuing revised recommendations along with new and technologically relevant recommendations, the standards challenge will always exist.  Developers, torn between product perf!
ormance, user demands, fixed budgets, hard deadlines, growing bug lists, and standards lasting months not years, will often understandably opt for shorter-term gains and later address standards issues as seen fit, as the quote above (dated March 26, 2001) from the Microsoft site illustrates.

If a corporation with as many resources and bright minds as Microsoft has to its credit has demonstrated it cannot completely comply, even with standards years old (e.g. CSS), this underscores the complexity behind standards issues, especially when juxtaposed with corporate agendas and the need to innovate on demand.  In the end, the "standard" of the day will be what is most commonly practiced.  Having a monopoly on the market with a browser like IE gives a corporation plenty of time and power to decide when, where, and if a technology is implemented and in what form.  This is why lack of marketplace competition is dangerous to consumers:  it forces them into doing things one way.  I think it would be unwise at this point to celebrate the presumed demise of a product like Netscape (flawed as it might be and promising as Opera seems), the only real product of its caliber, developer/user/support base, and open source methods, that spares consumers from one company's limited v!
ision of what the web should be.  For those very reasons AOL/Time-Warner should rethink their browser strategy if they dare consider phasing out Netscape, even if in name only.  They should realize what they have and its influence on how users worldwide will access the web.

Regardless of your browser persuasion, IE would only get marginally better if there were no Netscape or comparable product out there to keep the browser race alive.  Also worth noting:  IE is still very much platform-oriented, and there are platforms other than Windows out there (Linux most notably) that look to (or desire) other means for accessing the web.  It might seem as if every PC out there was running some version of Windows, but that is not and never will be the case, just as languages other than English will continue to be spoken and studied.  The diversity and complexity of our information needs and software preferences demands a range of technologies no one company can possibly provide.  Much can be delegated to plug-ins (Adobe Acrobat for .PDF, Flash for animated content, RealAudio), but ultimately browser developers must deal with core implementation issues, which now include XML, XHTML, XSL, CSS, and other technologies.

Standards compliance online will remain vital to the long-term survival of the Internet (and Internet2).  Enforcing and implementing those standards, like the very laws of our land, is equally essential if the word "standard" is to have any meaning.  As for the standards definers and hardline proponents, they must be realistic as to how much of their recommendations can be realized, especially when they continuously introduce new changes and deprecations into a system already stressed by the last recent iteration of changes and deprecations.  Where simplicity and consistency prevail, technology tends to be most dependable.  Right now, there's a little too much entropy online for anything, much less a web browser, to perform reliably.  This would be an opportune time for all parties involved to pause for a moment, sharpen up Occam's Razor, and get back to basics.

Robert Tiess
rjtiess at warwick.net
http://rtiess.tripod.com