• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:08:23 -0700
• In-reply-to: <200210210223.WAA22372@m...>
• References: <200210210223.WAA22372@m...>

John Cowan wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji scripsit:
>
> > It seems you're the one missing history.  The browser was hasn't been an
> > HTML-only proposition since Netscape and Microsoft took over.  It you're us
> ing
> > Mosaic as your benchmark of what a browser has always been to users and
> > developers, I think you're setting up a gigantic straw man, and I, for one,
>  am
> > not following you there.
>
> Indeed, even Mosaic could handle multiple formats, notably including GIF.

I remember it started quite a stir on the WWW mailing
list when Mosaic (unilaterally) added the <IMG> tag to
HTML!

The main innovation of early Web browsers was that they
supported multiple *protocols* -- HTTP, gopher, ftp, and WAIS
were the main ones -- not multiple formats.

Uche's right, though; what early web browsers did or did not
do is largely irrelevant.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Specifying a Unicode subset
• Next by Date: What is an "element"?
• Previous by thread: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Next by thread: RE: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread