Re: A more rational approach to Browsers - Microsoft please read this

From: Jeff Cochran (jeff.nospam_at_zina.com)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:44:08 GMT

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:59:37 -0700, "news.microsoft.com"
<nobody@nowhere.abc> wrote:

>The needs of high-security internet access are not cutting edge. We need
>STABLE, RELIABLE BROWSERS that DO NOT OFFER ANY FEATURES BEYOND THE
>SPECIFICATION. These armored browsers must be 100% predictable and provide
>STANDARDIZED FUNCTIONALITY. Adding cool new features, and retaining existing
>unnecessary features is destabilizing and creates the potential for more
>security problems. Ship and patch will not work. Get it right first and then
>ship.
>
>The needs of gamers and innovators are cutting edge. They need POWERFUL,
>FLEXIBLE BROWSERS that EASILY INCORPORATE NEW FEATURES. These souped-up
>browsers must allow enterprising developers and users the maximum headroom
>to grow their ideas on the Internet. This would be akin to an OPEN SOURCE
>ENVIRONMENT for new products and technologies to emerge with the least
>possible resistance. This would be global laboratory.
>
>These are extremes of Internet Browsing. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE MUTUALLY
>EXCLUSIVE.
>
>Interestingly enough, the Armored Browsers can borrow and incorporate ideas
>from the Souped-Up Browsers---AFTER THOSE IDEAS HAVE MATURED and been
>CODIFIED IN STANDARDS.

What of these is missing in available browsers on the market now?

Jeff

>Microsoft has the resources and the opportunity to break away from the Gecko
>Pack and forge a new direction in Internet Browsing.
>
>-G
>www.gerardvignes.com
>
>
>"S. Pidgorny <MVP>" <slavickp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:eQA8BNllEHA.2968@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> I strongly disagree with proposed approach and urge Microsoft to keep one
>> quality product.
>>
>> G, your approach isn't very practical. Remember, Microsoft is a software
>> development company, and they must eliminate security vulnerabilities and
>> other software bugs. To allow compromises means not only maintaining three
>> code bases (in your proposal), but also is encouraging developers not to
>pay
>> attention to bugs. Too bad, especially when the practice will apply to
>> Windows.
>>
>> Two more things. Firstly, there are at least two more versions of internet
>> Explorer that are different from IE6: Pocket internet Explorer for Pocket
>PC
>> and the smartphone IE. Both don't have widely known vulnerabilities - make
>> an armored race car. Secondly, your plan doesn't provide seamless
>migration
>> path from awesome dude to the suit. Too bad.
>>
>> --
>> Svyatoslav Pidgorny, MVP, MCSE
>> -= F1 is the key =-
>>
>> "news.microsoft.com" <nobody@nowhere.abc> wrote in message
>> news:uar2CmklEHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > I would like to propose a more rational approach to browsers.
>> >
>> > There are three basic classes of browsing, with three very different
>> needs.
>> >
>> > 1. Secure (critical work and online purchases)
>> > security and reliability are a premium---can you say LAW SUIT
>> > this browser should follow ecommerce/secure standards to the letter
>> > under pain of death
>> > this is the "Armored Car" of browsers
>> >
>> > 2. Cutting-Edge (gamers and other innovators)
>> > performance and new features are a premium---can you say AWESOME
>DUDE
>> > this browser should allow anything and everything
>> > this is the "Race Car" of browsers
>> >
>> > 3. Newbies (learners and less demanding users)
>> > ease of use and simplicity are a premium---can you say DUHHHHHHH
>> > this browser should support commonly needed functions
>> > this is the Minivan of browsers
>> >
>> > Now Microsoft already has a broswer that morphs back and forth between
>> > Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer seamlessly (sometimes when you
>> don't
>> > even really want it to).
>> >
>> > Why can't Microsoft make THREE DIFFERENT INTERNET BROWSERS that morph
>> > between themselves depending on the specific application.
>> >
>> > I know that the ppl at Microsoft are smart enough to figure out how to
>> share
>> > cookies, caches and sessions between all three versions of browsers. I
>> know
>> > they can make this idea work. I know they can probably come with an even
>> > better idea than this one.
>> >
>> > I can't figure out why Internet Explorer is three years behind the times
>> and
>> > unsafe at any speed.
>> >
>> > I can be reached at www.gerardvignes.com (certified genuis)
>> >
>> > -G
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: typeof for feature testing host methods
    ... I have said where I draw the line: I won't test for `typeof' anymore because ... and host features (although you may start testing for all host ... even supported by legacy browsers released almost eight years ago. ... you have made a superior choice and have justification to criticize ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Accessing the global object
    ... say how futile it is to discuss anything without knowing the context. ... which browsers you don't care about? ... those other decisions) which features those browsers would need to provide ... before they could actively support the script. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: F12 preview-in-browser key (FP2003)
    ... I have have no problem with the extended features, ... It's the increasing failure to properly support things like CSS2, ... some of the "alternative" browsers. ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.client)
  • Re: MREMag website down
    ... these web designers are not aware of these features, or could it be these features actually have some browsing advantages? ... And don't forget things which aren't browsers, such as search engines crawling through your site to index it. ... design software will let you use commercial browsers to check out your ... Having done some professional web work, the problems I've seen have mostly been down to low-to-middle mangers not have a clue about the web, combined with people who went on a one-day HTML 3.2 course in the late 1990s and so "know about IT". ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)