But then, wouldn't it then have all the problems of IE?
And Windows has the problems of Windows and Unix has the problems of Unix
and
<insert application name> has the problems of <insert application name>.
As a developer I want something very simple:
* the platform I'm developing on (in this case a "browser") will work pretty
well as documented and continue to do so ad infinitum.
The fact that there are N browsers and they all work differently is no help
to anyone. Sure, MS might be to blame for some of this, but they now have
the market share.
If you want to write a browser that is *helpful* to your users, it should
work - rightly or wrongly - the same as the leader.
Its point of differentiation should be in other areas: speed, extra
features, cost (joke!), whatever.
But, *absolutely not* in the way it renders pages and processes logic
statements (e.g. Javascript).
Why is a good thing that a web developer has to write certain parts of their
web site (or web application) several times and test it 3 or 4 extra
different ways? It's a waste of time, resources, effort, and is simple bad.
Real life analogy - ever developed a Windows application. Now to test it:
Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, Win ME, Win XP. Potentially they all work
differently. In practice, you only need to test on two or three of these,
but that's two or three too many.
MS is brain dead (actually they just don't give a s%$t). Simple.
Therefore, the same situation in browser is equally brain dead.
Ultimately, differences in rendering is what will starve all other browsers
of market share (except of course on specific non-IE platforms, such as
Linux).
Why would *any* Internet user use a browser other than IE (except if it
render screens and logic the same way)?
Would you recommend XYZ browser to your 80 year old father, or just say "hey
use IE, you'll have fewer problems surfing"?
regards,
RR