thanks, t.whid.

'I don

> i thought that IE 5/Mac was compliant with the standard DOM. it was ns4
> which had it all f'd up with the friggin' layer property.
>
> no?

only one of my dhtml works (the first one) works on any mac browsers. one of the articles you
provided mentions problems with the DOM in IE for the Mac.

> > but it runs shockwave ok.
> >
> > which is one of the reasons i switched from creating dhtml work to
> > shockwave work.
>
> them plugins certainly make it easier to do sites that net artists
> would like to do, meaning more control over the final product which
> many times is more interested in interesting visuals than in standards
> compliance, machine readability, etc.
>
> >
> > "Ho says that the decision has been made to make way for Apple's own
> > Safari browser. 'Some of
> > the key customer requests for web browsing on the Mac require close
> > development between the
> > browser and the OS, something to which only Apple has access,' she
> > explained."
>
> on some other forums regarding this issue some folks pointed out that
> this is an admission of guilt by MS. If they can't compete with the
> developer of the OS than how can anyone compete with them on their OS?

possibly. or you could read it this way: microsoft and apple agree that some browsers need to
support features that can only be supported via integration with the OS.

now what are those features? perhaps you're right and it's an empy argument designed to squash
competition, nothing else. but we haven't heard the argument, or at least i haven't. so it's
hard to judge.

would such browsers be superior to the competition to the point where they kill the competition?

if they are significantly superior in terms of the features they support, then that means that
the features achievable via OS integration *are* significant.

if OS-integrated browsers are not, in theory, significantly superior in terms of the features
they support, then that means they are (more or less) just a means of squashing competition, as
you say.

> their arg during the browser war was that Netscape had a fair playing
> field on which to compete against MS's own browser. now we see them,
> thru Ho, admitting that it's impossible to compete when someone
> controls the playing field and you don't. of course the Bushies aren't
> gonna do a damn thing about it.

no, they won't want to rock the economic boat like it rocked last time. mind you, the stock
market was ready for that blasted 'adjustment' (crash!).

ja


> >> this editorial on zeldman.com covers the pertinent points regarding
> >> this development and what it may mean for people producing things for
> >> the web:
> >>
> >> http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0603a.shtml#rip
> >
> > http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/
> > news_story.php?idC191



.