Replies

That's the impetus behind stuff like ActiveX and ASP.NET - to create channels where you can do cool stuff, but only if you use MS browsers and MS servers. So if you want to do that cool stuff, you have to buy the server from MS, because they sure aren't giving that away for free, unlike the client end.

You don't know what you are talking about. ActiveX was not created for the Internet (although years ago they attempted to use it on the Internet). ASP.NET does not create content that only works on MS browsers. All the cool stuff offered by .NET is usable by any browser that conforms to W3C standards. BTW: FireFox does not support CSS correctly. It is FireFox's problem, not Microsofts. CSS are defined by the W3C, not Microsoft.

ActiveX was not created for the Internet (although years ago they attempted to use it on the Internet).

Ummm, what? ActiveX was first released with IE 3, and of course it was intended for web development - what exactly do you think it was for? Licking stamps? Sharpening pencils? Cleaning ovens? Hell, Windows Update is an ActiveX control on the client side, and if that's not an internet application, I don't know what is.

ASP.NET does not create content that only works on MS browsers.

But it can be so used - that's the point.

BTW: FireFox does not support CSS correctly.

What? IE 6 still doesn't fully support CSS1, nevermind CSS2. Anyone who's interested in the truth about CSS support can see the obvious differences between IE and Gecko-based browsers here, among other places.

All the cool stuff offered by .NET is usable by any browser that conforms to W3C standards.

I just ran a page created entirely by VisualStudio .NET through the W3C validator and it threw six errors. I also ran some CSS through the validator and it came out fine, but IE couldn't render it -- Firefox could.

IE does do one thing better than Firefox. It can handle bad HTML better, which is one of the reasons why IE renders pages created by Microsoft tools better.

It is FireFox's problem, not Microsofts. CSS are defined by the W3C, not Microsoft.

Microsoft disagrees. They admit that they ignore the standards, stating that standards compliance is not something their customers want, so it's not something they're interested in doing. Let me dig up a quote...

"While it is true that our implementation is not fully, 100 percent W3C-compliant, our development investments are driven by our customer requirements and not necessarily by standards ... We balance feedback from all our customers and make our development decisions based on meeting the requirements of all of our customers, not just a few of them,"

"Few of them" refers to all the developers and content-creation companies (like Adobe) complaining about IE's shoddy CSS implementation.