Well, I do suspect that’s Roy’s actual point of view, in so far as MS can do nothing right when developing IE.

It would nice to be able to ignore IE, but we can’t atm.

At this point it’s not important why or how MS goes away and quits the market, it’s enough that it just goes away.

Hey, Roy, how about you stop promoting proprietary technologies and pass on Press Releases and Advertisements as articles.

He’s uses blank criticism. For him it’s not important what Microsoft does. If Microsoft did find a cure for cancer tomorrow he would still be criticizing them. If Microsoft does something is must evil. So a blank criticism by Roy. Because he doesn’t understand even 1% of what he writes about it ends up likes this post.

The same thing happens with Novell. Not only the actions of the company but also of it’s employees against whom he launches a smear campaign with some really despicable insinuations.

Every ex-Microsoft employee that’s hired by some company is part of worldwide conspiracy to help out Microsoft take over the world. The guy saw to many episodes of Pinky and Brain.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

Should they be using the CSS3 names or not?

From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 9:44 AM
To: Bob Muglia (Exchange); Jon DeVaan; Steven Sinofsky
Cc: Paul Mariz
Subject: Office rendering

One thing we have got to change is our strategy — allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by OTHER PEOPLES BROWSERS is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.

We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.

Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to to destroy Windows.

“We’re disheartened because Microsoft helped W3C develop the very standards that they’ve failed to implement in their browser. We’re also dismayed to see Microsoft continue adding proprietary extensions to these standards when support for the essentials remains unfinished.”

–George Olsen, Web Standards Project

But please, don’t side-step a serious question: how should Microsoft implement this functionality?

You would be naive, Alex, to believe whatever Microsoft tells you. To make matters worse, you try to spread this ‘trust’, imposing it onto others.

You’re saying they’re damaging web standards because of vendor extensions to CSS. How would you prefer them to implement these features?

In this specific case, though, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to use the CSS3 names?

“Yeah. More broken websites in the name of “standards!” So essentially, I need to update all of my websites from overflow-y to -ms-overflow-y. But I can’t remove the overflow-y because IE6 and IE7 need that. Then of course when IE8.1 or IE9 (whatever is next) comes around and supports CSS3, I need to revert back to overflow-y because now it will be standardized. But I can’t remove -ms-overflow-y because IE8 needs it. Essentially, this change guarantees that websites will NOT be standards compliant for years! If you just leave it at overflow-y maybe people will complain until CSS3 is standardized, but at least after that the madness ends rather than just continuing for years to come.“

Simple question: would you prefer that they use the CSS3 descriptors for these features?

The vast majority of what both of them are doing are implementing CSS3 properties. They are forced to put those in the vendor namespace, because they spec. hasn’t been fixed yet and the standard may change. The non-CSS3 stuff they’re doing is also fine, because it’s rounding out stuff the CSS people should be addressing – like scrollbars.