[Javascript] Debugger

[hakan at backbase.com (Hakan M.)]

liorean wrote:

> Hakan M. wrote:
>
>> Gee, did I hit a hotspot there?
>
>
> Well, I think you are less than objective about it, and I've heard 
> lots of these Microsoft bashings. This is actually the first time I 
> take the Microsoft stance, though. I usually side with Mozilla.
>
>> You have a "hard time" justifying the lack of PNG-support, eight 
>> years after the promise was made to support it? Do you even KNOW what 
>> the PNG-format is, and its benefits over existing (GIF) web graphic 
>> formats? For someone so furiously defending multinational 
>> megacorporations and their lack of interest in the end user 
>> developers, you sure seem to have a funny view on the GIF patent issues.
>
>
> I'm not defending them. I'm just trying to point out that some of your 
> arguments are not valid. This one surely was valid, however.
>
>> MSXML is not the browser, my friend. It's a ActiveX-plugin for the 
>> browser. The browser doesn't even understand the xhtml-mimetype. 
>> Sure, Microsoft have great, huge libraries for anything you want, but 
>> that has nothing to do with their browser. I have a really hard time 
>> justifying the use of plugins/htc-files to get normal browser 
>> behaviour, but maybe that's just me.
>
>
> MSHTML isn't the browser either. MSXML and MSHTML are both parsing 
> engines that unite in using the same rendering engine (Trident) and 
> are both part of the browser. Iew supports XML and HTML through them, 
> but doesn't support the XHTML media type (which is newer than the 
> browser) and doesn't sport XHTML namespace recognition (which is not 
> required, either).
>
>> I didn't say they SHOULD put an army of developers on it. I said they 
>> HAVE an army of developers. PNG-support, for example, would take one 
>> developer a few hours with one of the many free (but stable!) 
>> PNG-libraries to implement. They don't need the army of developers to 
>> implement one little thing, that would make the browser much more 
>> appriciated. If they're not doing this deliberately, it only leaves 
>> us with one choice - their developers don't have the skills to do it.
>
>
> In fact, they wouldn't need using one of those libraries - they have 
> prefect PNG support in among other applications DirectX, iem and 
> Office. They just need to put some priority to the iew development, 
> which is where they fail.
>
>> I think what you're saying is "if it weren't for the browser wars and 
>> Netscape, Microsoft wouldn't have cared about the end user developers 
>> at all". XHTML became a RECOMMENDATION in 2000, the first draft 
>> appeared in 1998, if I recall correctly.
>
>
> I don't see you complaining about that Mozilla haven't implemented 
> full XLink yet, or some other thing that has been a recommendation for 
> some time now. Microsoft supports most of XHTML through it's HTML 
> engine, and that is enough for most. People (like me) that use XHTML 
> in their personal site, can very well look at the HTTP headers to see 
> if a browser claims it supports the XHTML media type, and send it as 
> HTML otherwise. Mozilla and Opera tells the server they accept the 
> XHTML media type, while iew doesn't, so why should your server then 
> try to send it using the XHTML media type?
>
>> I can counter by saying "If it weren't for Microsoft, we would not 
>> have these browser incompatibilities we have today." It makes just as 
>> much sense.
>
>
>
>> They are NOW considering that? So IE is currently not a core 
>> technology of Windows? Ever guessed why the patches for IE are along 
>> the lines of "prevent any newbie hacker from any part of the world to 
>> take complete control over your computer and wife" instead of "added 
>> correct calculation of margins"? Ever guessed why you can't run older 
>> versions of IE on new versions of Windows (you can, but not the way 
>> it's "supposed" to be run)
>
>
> You fail to see what I mean. Up until now, iew has been an external 
> application that communicates with and is commucated with by a lot of 
> other applications, some of which has been core functionality of the 
> OS or the GUI, but WAS separated. In Longhorn, however, the OS is the 
> browser. It's moved to the point where you CAN NO LONGER remove the 
> browser, because then the OS itself will no longer work.
>
>> IE is not in control over I/O operations on kernel level, sure, but 
>> anything that exposes the operating system to such a massive range of 
>> attacks by only being installed is taking enough part in the OS, if 
>> you ask me. It's funny that you think this is a GOOD thing.
>
>
> I don't think it's a good thing, and I'm not saying so, either. I was 
> pointing out that we have reached the point-of-no-return when it comes 
> to integration.
>
>>> I'm tired of Microsoft bashing when the arguments are 
>>
>> With an audience like you, who needs better arguments.
>
>
> You.
>
> You are making assumptions that are not necessarily true (about me and 
> my stance in this, for instance) and you are making arguments that are 
> not correct (XML support and Microsoft deliberately letting iew fall 
> into despair, for instance).
>