MS Extensions - Opinions?

[Michael]

Does anyone have a resource that can tell me exactly the evolution of HTML
and what tags were made available for each browser at various stages?

Also, what advantages and disadvantages do we feel that the extensions that
Microsoft has added to HTML has for the company and also the end user?

For a start I'd say that an advantage to web users is that it creates a more
powerful web environment, and a disadvantage is that it adds to the MS
monopoly on the web.

Anyone got any other opinions on this matter?

TIA.

 

[Guest]

Does anyone have a resource that can tell me exactly the evolution of HTML
and what tags were made available for each browser at various stages?

Also, what advantages and disadvantages do we feel that the extensions that
Microsoft has added to HTML has for the company and also the end user?

For a start I'd say that an advantage to web users is that it creates a more
powerful web environment, and a disadvantage is that it adds to the MS
monopoly on the web.

Anyone got any other opinions on this matter?

TIA.

What are you doing a Thesis ?

http://www.w3.org/

 

[Michael]

What are you doing a Thesis ?

Nope, just answering a question on the subject as part of my CS degree
course.

http://www.w3.org/

Thanks.

 

[Richard]

Does anyone have a resource that can tell me exactly the evolution of
HTML and what tags were made available for each browser at various
stages?

Also, what advantages and disadvantages do we feel that the extensions
that Microsoft has added to HTML has for the company and also the end
user?

For a start I'd say that an advantage to web users is that it creates a
more powerful web environment, and a disadvantage is that it adds to the
MS monopoly on the web.

Anyone got any other opinions on this matter?

TIA.

While M$ would have you believe that they are in control, in reality, AOL
"_KNOWS_" they are in control.
Why does AOL insist upon demanding YOU sign up with them? Sending you
unsolicited disks in the mail every month.
Then when you want to use certain software, you find that AOL wants to tag
along on your system, like it or not.
At least M$ gives you a choice and doesn't bug you in evrey possible way as
AOL does.

The problem is, nobody around has come up with a viable solution to the M$
monopoly.
That is, outside of linux, no real operating system exists that can compete
with M$.

As for html and browsers, what is wrong with the rest of the world accepting
the M$ extensions and using them?
OTOH, why can't M$ conform to the standards as they are?
Heaven forbid any one should buck the system and change it.
If that were the way of all things, we'd still be on horseback and riding in
buggys.
Let alone have computers, flat screen tv's and the internet.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Does anyone have a resource that can tell me exactly the evolution of
HTML and what tags were made available for each browser at various
stages?

[snip]

Here is a start:

http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/netscape.htm

http://www.innervisions.com.au/webhistory/index.html

http://mercury.easternct.edu/d/duboisl/web/history/1996.html

http://www.webreference.com/html/tutorial11/

 

[Toby A Inkster]

That is, outside of linux, no real operating system exists that can compete
with M$.

Mac OS X? Also FreeBSD or any other Unix-like OS can be just as functional
as Linux for most purposes.

 

[Derek Clarkson]

Hi,
With regard to extensions. The issue is not whether company A or B is in
control of the web. The issue here is that the base idea of the web was
that it is an open environment with everyone having the same access and
abilites. Thus you should be able to access a web page on any browser and
obtain the same result. Now we all know that this is not the case, however
we should expect web pages that we access to contain content that everyone
has agreed as being standard and everyone is incorporting into their
browsers. This is why we have a standardised set of html tags. By straying
from this, Microsoft, Netscape, etc are going against the "use any browser"
principle and effectively trying to lock you into their software only. This
is a "bad thing"(TM) no matter how big or small the company is. It goes
against the very idea of the internet.

So even if these browser extensions are the most fabulous thing you have
ever encountered you should still not use them until the core standards
group that lays out the html standard has agreed and incorporated them into
a very heart of html. If we let companies use this technique of effectively
hijacking standards by adding their own fluff to them and mass releasing it
until they control where it is going, then you will end up in a world where
the only time things change is when it is for the good of the company - NOT
YOU! There are many examples of this. Look at how little development MS has
done to IE now that they have the lions share of the market.

The other arguement against using propriortory extensions is that by using
them, you effectively lock out those that either choose not to, or cannot
use the browser you are programming for. ATM it might not seem important,
but remember that the number of people using non-MS products is growing at
a massive rate. Some people argue that MS's monopoly is a good thing
because it enforces standards. They are mistaken. The truth is that it is
only good if your personal needs happen to coinside with the corporate
needs of Microsoft. It they don't then you are out of luck and have no
option to do anything about it. Thanks to Linux though, the playing field
is starting to rebalance after the tilting MS has given it. Eventually IE
is going to loose a massive share to the more modern browsers as more
people switch off their MS systems and move to something else. In this
situation people who write using browser specific extensions will have to
re-write their code. The smart ones who went for open standards and systems
won't have to do anything.

cio
Derek.