Comments on: U.S. Copyright Office poll: IE-only OK?

As it prepares a new Web site for prospective copyright holders, the agency wants to know what people think of being restricted to IE.

[Breezy1601]

Active X and Windows scripting on web needs to die

I'm saying that not knowing if Seibel is using Active X but that would be the limitation main for IE only.

Those few developers depending on these insecure and untrustworthy platforms need to shed them quickly. The world is moving away from IE. It's really happening.

Or Java/Flash only?

Rather than produce a purely IE only website, surely producing a Flash only website would be better.

At least this is supported by more clients than Internet Explorer.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.

[Breezy1601]

Active X and Windows scripting on web needs to die

I'm saying that not knowing if Seibel is using Active X but that would be the limitation main for IE only.

Those few developers depending on these insecure and untrustworthy platforms need to shed them quickly. The world is moving away from IE. It's really happening.

Or Java/Flash only?

Rather than produce a purely IE only website, surely producing a Flash only website would be better.

At least this is supported by more clients than Internet Explorer.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.

[System Tyrant]

The Government cant legally do it.

They will shut out less than 10% of users, but they must still support those users. They can't shun those who use non-Microsoft OS. Those running Linux for example would have no way (assuming it doesn't work at all) to submit applications. I'm no lawyer, but I figure if they shut out even 1% they are going to end up in court. Although, the Supreme Court seems to have gone completly stupid of late.

Whether they do or not, the government shouldn't have the right to shut out even a 1/2% of the population. They should find a solution that suits all people. In this case that's not as difficult as sorting out gay rights, civil rights, or womens rights.

Their new software should support IE, Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Safari, and any other reasonable browser. Their is enough technology out their to do this. If Seibel can't do it then they need to look elsewere.

[William Squire]

Yes, they can.

They haven't "shut-out" anybody. Call them on the phone and ask for the paper forms to fill out. There is a process that works for everybody. The online version will be cross-browser compatible shortly.

http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8

[George Cole]

1/2% of the population

http://www.analogstereo.com/saturn_s_series_owners_manual.htm

[System Tyrant]

The Government cant legally do it.

They will shut out less than 10% of users, but they must still support those users. They can't shun those who use non-Microsoft OS. Those running Linux for example would have no way (assuming it doesn't work at all) to submit applications. I'm no lawyer, but I figure if they shut out even 1% they are going to end up in court. Although, the Supreme Court seems to have gone completly stupid of late.

Whether they do or not, the government shouldn't have the right to shut out even a 1/2% of the population. They should find a solution that suits all people. In this case that's not as difficult as sorting out gay rights, civil rights, or womens rights.

Their new software should support IE, Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Safari, and any other reasonable browser. Their is enough technology out their to do this. If Seibel can't do it then they need to look elsewere.

[William Squire]

Yes, they can.

They haven't "shut-out" anybody. Call them on the phone and ask for the paper forms to fill out. There is a process that works for everybody. The online version will be cross-browser compatible shortly.

http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8

[George Cole]

1/2% of the population

http://www.analogstereo.com/saturn_s_series_owners_manual.htm

[System Tyrant]

How many people here are writing them...

to let them know how bad of an idea this is. I for one am.

[System Tyrant]

How many people here are writing them...

to let them know how bad of an idea this is. I for one am.

Specilisation vs innovation.

Hello all.

I am a member of Experts Exchange (http://www.experts-exchange.com - a place where people with questions get answers) and I received Expert Exchange's August Newsletter with the story that the US Copyright Office is thinking of creating an Internet Explorer-only website.

I was amazed that a body like the US Copyright Office would ever consider such a restrictive and short sighted practise.

I am reminded of the Henry Ford quote "You can have it in any colour as long as it is black!".

The idea that enforcing a proprietary platform for web development is bad enough. But to choose one that has shown again and again its clear comtempt for Open Standards is extremely worrying.

By selecting Microsoft?s Internet Explorer as the only supported web browser, the US Copyright Office is effectively rubber stamping the US Government?s disapproval of Open Source Software, innovation and free choice.

Aside from the lack of support for Apple Mac users and Unix/Linux users, as well as future technology users like High Definition webtv browsers, Hires WAP users and others, Microsoft will have the luxury of being able to say that the reason for no further development of their browser is that it would break too many websites. A complete stagnation of worldwide browser development.

The US Copyright Office is basically saying that the browser is owned by Microsoft.

Add to this, Microsoft have said that they do not intend to release Internet Explorer as a separate product, the US Copyright Office is therefore implying that only Microsoft Windows will be acceptable.

And with that sort of endorcement, surely the US Copyright Office is complicit in promoting a monopoly and should be censured as appropriate.

I suspect that the reason for the consideration of an Internet Explorer website is poor staffing. There are plenty of developers around (ahem) quite capabale of producing standards compliant websites that can also support Internet Explorer. For many years this poor quality browser has been the thorn in the side of the website developers. Admittedly, the other browsers are not perfect, but they have a significantly better chance of adhering to the standards than Internet Explorer. It is in Microsoft?s (financial, but, in my opinion, not best) interests to not have compliance AND to have short-sighted, misinformed and / or the non-technically minded individuals and organisations telling the rest of us what we should or should not do.

In the UK, we call this the ?Nanny State?. We have MANY examples of the interference of the Nanny State. My favourite is that there used to be these small rubbers (erasers for you guys in the US). They looked like stylised pieces of fruit and smelt nice. Nice for kids. They were withdrawn as it was possible for children to choke on them.

Yet, despite quite extensive research, there are no reports of this ever happening. Only that it might. The Nanny State strikes again.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.

Specilisation vs innovation.

Hello all.

I am a member of Experts Exchange (http://www.experts-exchange.com - a place where people with questions get answers) and I received Expert Exchange's August Newsletter with the story that the US Copyright Office is thinking of creating an Internet Explorer-only website.

I was amazed that a body like the US Copyright Office would ever consider such a restrictive and short sighted practise.

I am reminded of the Henry Ford quote "You can have it in any colour as long as it is black!".

The idea that enforcing a proprietary platform for web development is bad enough. But to choose one that has shown again and again its clear comtempt for Open Standards is extremely worrying.

By selecting Microsoft?s Internet Explorer as the only supported web browser, the US Copyright Office is effectively rubber stamping the US Government?s disapproval of Open Source Software, innovation and free choice.

Aside from the lack of support for Apple Mac users and Unix/Linux users, as well as future technology users like High Definition webtv browsers, Hires WAP users and others, Microsoft will have the luxury of being able to say that the reason for no further development of their browser is that it would break too many websites. A complete stagnation of worldwide browser development.

The US Copyright Office is basically saying that the browser is owned by Microsoft.

Add to this, Microsoft have said that they do not intend to release Internet Explorer as a separate product, the US Copyright Office is therefore implying that only Microsoft Windows will be acceptable.

And with that sort of endorcement, surely the US Copyright Office is complicit in promoting a monopoly and should be censured as appropriate.

I suspect that the reason for the consideration of an Internet Explorer website is poor staffing. There are plenty of developers around (ahem) quite capabale of producing standards compliant websites that can also support Internet Explorer. For many years this poor quality browser has been the thorn in the side of the website developers. Admittedly, the other browsers are not perfect, but they have a significantly better chance of adhering to the standards than Internet Explorer. It is in Microsoft?s (financial, but, in my opinion, not best) interests to not have compliance AND to have short-sighted, misinformed and / or the non-technically minded individuals and organisations telling the rest of us what we should or should not do.

In the UK, we call this the ?Nanny State?. We have MANY examples of the interference of the Nanny State. My favourite is that there used to be these small rubbers (erasers for you guys in the US). They looked like stylised pieces of fruit and smelt nice. Nice for kids. They were withdrawn as it was possible for children to choke on them.

Yet, despite quite extensive research, there are no reports of this ever happening. Only that it might. The Nanny State strikes again.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.