 | | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Mike Stanley
| | | | (...) Ok, just so I understand this, you're saying that MS, a company that is almost universally condemned for _not_ adhering to standards, should have done what others (and maybe you) have screamed about all along - that is violate those standards? (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) I'm saying: IMHO, it is unfortunate that Microsoft did not do what Netscape did in that case, which was to violate the spec as Netscape did. The spec ended up changing in 4.0 anyway, so if MS has done what NN did, then at least the top 2 (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Mark Koesel
| | | | | "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FrqMLK.LCo@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) probably (...) rather (...) goes (...) experience, (...) The problem with that is "arguably broken" is subjective. If one vendor thinks the standard is (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | |
