<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;IE must comply with web standards.&#8221; (Opera has suggested that Microsoft must support web standards they have promised to support).</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:13:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: EC Principles: Synthesis &#124; Mitchell&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/comment-page-1/#comment-11974</link>
		<dc:creator>EC Principles: Synthesis &#124; Mitchell&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=1366#comment-11974</guid>
		<description>[...] 7, IE must support web standards, was controversial as a judicial / regulatory requirement. Many want IE to do this but are even [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 7, IE must support web standards, was controversial as a judicial / regulatory requirement. Many want IE to do this but are even [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Wright</title>
		<link>http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/comment-page-1/#comment-11841</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=1366#comment-11841</guid>
		<description>@Pseudonymous Coward
As a developer of Wordpress plugins (which use the same &#039;complete access&#039; security model as firefox extensions) their major strength is that you can make an addon which does literally anything like for example running an entire forum or wiki inside wordpress. The problem with sandboxing is it means that many things just are not possible any more. Of course there is a security risk (as I found out in a defective version of my plugin a while ago) but the more you lock things down, the more you stifle them. I think the thing was with noscript that there was a lack of communications and it is a contentious issue but in the end the right thing happened. Also I think that jetpack will bring something closer to this for extensions which do not try to do everything. I think an example of access control &#039;done right&#039; is the android model where apps declare the permissions they need on install.

I think any solution which leaves the majority of users on browsers which are not capable of handling advanced webpages without serious hacking is by nature imperfect but as some things will never change I think that Firefox (and any browser with 10%+ marketshare for the target OS - it would be unrealistic to add chrome and similar) should be a choice, not at install time but on the desktop and in the menus. Most modern Linux distros only ship one OS but that is because most Linux users pick their distro based on the complete package (installed apps are actually compared) and adding a new browser would not be beyond their skill. Linux distros usually also have to fit onto 1 CD (try that Microsoft) and 700mb does not leave a lot of room for many browsers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Pseudonymous Coward<br />
As a developer of Wordpress plugins (which use the same &#8216;complete access&#8217; security model as firefox extensions) their major strength is that you can make an addon which does literally anything like for example running an entire forum or wiki inside wordpress. The problem with sandboxing is it means that many things just are not possible any more. Of course there is a security risk (as I found out in a defective version of my plugin a while ago) but the more you lock things down, the more you stifle them. I think the thing was with noscript that there was a lack of communications and it is a contentious issue but in the end the right thing happened. Also I think that jetpack will bring something closer to this for extensions which do not try to do everything. I think an example of access control &#8216;done right&#8217; is the android model where apps declare the permissions they need on install.</p>
<p>I think any solution which leaves the majority of users on browsers which are not capable of handling advanced webpages without serious hacking is by nature imperfect but as some things will never change I think that Firefox (and any browser with 10%+ marketshare for the target OS &#8211; it would be unrealistic to add chrome and similar) should be a choice, not at install time but on the desktop and in the menus. Most modern Linux distros only ship one OS but that is because most Linux users pick their distro based on the complete package (installed apps are actually compared) and adding a new browser would not be beyond their skill. Linux distros usually also have to fit onto 1 CD (try that Microsoft) and 700mb does not leave a lot of room for many browsers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aski-memnu</title>
		<link>http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/comment-page-1/#comment-11835</link>
		<dc:creator>aski-memnu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=1366#comment-11835</guid>
		<description>opera cok berbat nedr o ya öle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>opera cok berbat nedr o ya öle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry Jeske</title>
		<link>http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/comment-page-1/#comment-11659</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Jeske</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 23:08:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=1366#comment-11659</guid>
		<description>Being a web application developer I have real axe to grind with IE&#039;s lack of adherence to standards. But I must say that Mozilla is making a huge mistake, that is forcing many companies to standardize on IE. The decision to not allow the browser to launch locally mapped resources is killing attempts to get companies to switch to Firefox.  My company just implemented a search engine to assist our users in finding documents stored on network shares. They love it, but they cannot launch the documents because Firefox blocks it.  This is also a problem for mapping files and directories on our intranets&#039; web site.

Michelle, I know why this is a security risk, but in an intranet setting it is crippling. Please either make this a configurable option, or create a branch for intranets. The workplace is where many Firefox evangelists convert users from IE, but this one issue is giving us a black eye.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I am passionate about FF.  ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Being a web application developer I have real axe to grind with IE&#8217;s lack of adherence to standards. But I must say that Mozilla is making a huge mistake, that is forcing many companies to standardize on IE. The decision to not allow the browser to launch locally mapped resources is killing attempts to get companies to switch to Firefox.  My company just implemented a search engine to assist our users in finding documents stored on network shares. They love it, but they cannot launch the documents because Firefox blocks it.  This is also a problem for mapping files and directories on our intranets&#8217; web site.</p>
<p>Michelle, I know why this is a security risk, but in an intranet setting it is crippling. Please either make this a configurable option, or create a branch for intranets. The workplace is where many Firefox evangelists convert users from IE, but this one issue is giving us a black eye.</p>
<p>Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I am passionate about FF.  <img src='http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Wiedeman</title>
		<link>http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/04/09/ie-must-comply-with-web-standards-opera-has-suggested-that-microsoft-must-support-web-standards-they-have-promised-to-support/comment-page-1/#comment-11656</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Wiedeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 14:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=1366#comment-11656</guid>
		<description>I like Opera and Firefox. 

I do not like the idea of governments, whether EU or USA, setting Web standards of any kind. The free market is what grew the Web. The free market is what has made Microsoft dominant. There is no need to try to artificially reduce Microsoft&#039;s market-share; if they produce products that customers don&#039;t want, those customers have options. If customers don&#039;t care enough to change browsers, that means it&#039;s not important to them.

The way to &quot;defeat&quot; Microsoft is to make a product that the customer prefers -- not to hobble them with regulations because they are popular.

And yes, I know Microsoft is a predatory monopoly. So what? The only vote that truly matters is money. When people give Microsoft enough money to swallow other businesses and shut them down, they are saying &quot;we prefer Microsoft.&quot; When they make the effort to load Opera or Firefox, they are saying &quot;we prefer Opera or Mozilla.&quot;

I prefer Opera and Firefox to IE. I do not see IE as a threat; just an option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like Opera and Firefox. </p>
<p>I do not like the idea of governments, whether EU or USA, setting Web standards of any kind. The free market is what grew the Web. The free market is what has made Microsoft dominant. There is no need to try to artificially reduce Microsoft&#8217;s market-share; if they produce products that customers don&#8217;t want, those customers have options. If customers don&#8217;t care enough to change browsers, that means it&#8217;s not important to them.</p>
<p>The way to &#8220;defeat&#8221; Microsoft is to make a product that the customer prefers &#8212; not to hobble them with regulations because they are popular.</p>
<p>And yes, I know Microsoft is a predatory monopoly. So what? The only vote that truly matters is money. When people give Microsoft enough money to swallow other businesses and shut them down, they are saying &#8220;we prefer Microsoft.&#8221; When they make the effort to load Opera or Firefox, they are saying &#8220;we prefer Opera or Mozilla.&#8221;</p>
<p>I prefer Opera and Firefox to IE. I do not see IE as a threat; just an option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
