Re: HTML browser vendors

Gary Rich (
Tue, 6 Dec 94 16:19:12 EST

Keith M. Corbett writes:
> >But the critical thing about this document is endorsement of the major
> >vendors. How do the folks from SoftQuad, NetScape, Spyglass, Spry,
> >EIT, MCC (the consortium in Austin, not Mosaic Comm Corp) etc. feel
> >about this? Which way should we go?
> Is there a vendor consortium in the works? Could this RFC be a catalyst?
> Is someone keeping close track of all the vendors products? Anyone going to
> monitor their reactions to the 2.0 spec?
> -kmc

It's worth noticing that most of us are already on this list (even if you did
forget Quarterdeck on your list ;-). I don't imagine that there is any
browser vendor that *isn't* looking toward the 2.0 spec as the thing to be
compatible with. I don't think I'd be telling tales out of school to say that
when our browser hits the streets we want 100% compatibility with the spec.

Personally, I don't see any advantage to having the 2.0 spec "endorsed" by the
various vendors. If anything it should be the other way around and some
independent group should "endorse" various browser's support of the spec,
though we would need a good test suite, something like the "perl purity test".
Maybe someone has developed such a suite and I just haven't seen it, it's a
big net.

Gary Rich
Quarterdeck Office Systems <A HREF="">home page</a>