Re: OT: Web Standards
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Tom Cook wrote:
> Why is it *so* hard to build a browser that is
>
> (a) Standards compliant
> (b) Small
> (c) Fast
> (d) Extensible (so you can look at all-flash sites if you want)
I'll make an observation: Pick three. Your selection will be mutually
exclusive to the remaining option.
> People just don't seem able to do it. Micro$oft can't, Netscape can't,
> Sun had a go at it, KDE is closeish, galeon seems not ideal... They're
> all slow, or have strange foibles, or won't display
> java/flash/pdf/name-your-poison or just plain segfault every three
> minutes like the good 'ol nutscrape versions (as one of my colleagues
> refers to them). What gives?
Mozilla is standards compliant, fast, and extensible.
--
Baloo
Reply to: