Only users of Internet Explorer and a version of Netscape will be able to access a copyright preregistration system slated for launch in late October.
"Other browsers may work well with the version we are using now, but they have not been tested," Julia Huff, the U.S. Copyright Office's chief operating officer, said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "Because of our tight schedule and resources, we cannot do that testing now."
The idea behind the preregistration system is to let people stake claims on their as-yet unpublished creative works. For example, a moviemaker who preregistered a film would be able to go after those who prematurely release scenes or copies of the work.
Though the law set a deadline for the office to come up with regulations for the preregistration system, it did not explicitly call for an electronic approach. Huff said the office decided to pursue the electronic route because of its "short implementation time."
Copyright officials learned in the past few months that the planned online system, developed by Siebel Systems, had been tested only with Internet Explorer 5.1 or higher and Netscape Navigator 7.0.2, Huff said. The office doesn't plan to support Firefox until it rolls out a new version of the software in late 2006. It has made no mention of plans to support Opera or Apple Computer's Safari.
According to statistics compiled by W3Schools, the two latest versions of Internet Explorer combined enjoyed more than two-thirds of the market share in August. Firefox garnered about 19 percent of users, and Netscape recorded less than 1 percent.
"There was, and is, no intent to endorse a particular vendor," Huff said.
But even if that wasn't the intent, industry groups argued, the office should rethink the move, which could effectively hamper consumer choice.
"By designing a system to open standards rather than the specifications of individual applications, the office will further its function and improve users' experiences, while promoting the vitality of the software market by not 'picking winners,'" representatives from the nonprofit Open Source and Industry Alliance, part of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, wrote in comments filed with the Copyright Office.
The organizations also urged the Copyright Office to be prepared to accept paper applications until it can make the system work for a broader swath of browsers. Huff said the office will evaluate the comments received before deciding whether to employ the paper option.
The World Wide Web Consortium, a global organization that encourages development of Web standards, said in its comments that going ahead with the limited version is contrary to the federal "e-government" strategy.
"The recommended strategy is to employ 'smart' buying practices to reduce acquisition and support costs, including software asset management, and increase the use of standards-compliant software,'" wrote W3C director Tim Berners-Lee, quoting from 2003 government recommendations.
And what about the moviemaker who wants to register his work from the set, using a Web-enabled cell phone? Not all such devices carry the Microsoft browser, Berners-Lee argued: "Restricting access to Internet Explorer only would then unfairly exclude those creators from the benefits of preregistration."
If you had read the original article, you'd know that the decision about what to support really has nothing to do with what the Copyright office wants. It's whether the Siebel software supports it or not, and their subsequent choice to use _that_.
If you had read the original article, you'd know that the decision about what to support really has nothing to do with what the Copyright office wants. It's whether the Siebel software supports it or not, and their subsequent choice to use _that_.
They're bringing up a valid point. The system is designed around Internet Explorer. Other browsers MIGHT work. But why should browser compatability be based on Internet Explorer?
Don't tell me it's because "everyone uses it." The reason it's the dominant browser is because it's integrated into the OS. By default, it's what people use who don't know about the alternitives (which is exactly how Microsoft wants it.)
The E-Government webpage should be designed around the W3C standards, not whatever proprietary crap Microsoft shovels out.
It's one thing to take advantage of an available technology outside of W3C standards when it's AVAILABLE to all the browsers (like Flash or SVG); it's a completey different thing for a company (i.e. Microsoft) to use it's dominant position to introduce and force proprietary technologies (like ActiveX) that ONLY work with Internet Explorer, thereby only extending peoples' relience on outdated and faulty technology.
What does Microsoft have to lose if major websites decided to adhear to open technologies and set standards? Why their market dominance, of course! If all webpages are created equal, it's the quality of the browser that would determine marketshare.
Who the would Internet Explorer and all its security ridden filth if they have perfectly valid alternatives?
Believe it or not, this is a GOOD thing. Perhaps if Microsoft loses significant market share they'd be forced to improve and secure their browser to compete with Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, Safari, and all the other browsers out there.
Catering to Microsoft's sloppiness and closed proprietary technology is helping no one but Microsoft.
They're bringing up a valid point. The system is designed around Internet Explorer. Other browsers MIGHT work. But why should browser compatability be based on Internet Explorer?
Don't tell me it's because "everyone uses it." The reason it's the dominant browser is because it's integrated into the OS. By default, it's what people use who don't know about the alternitives (which is exactly how Microsoft wants it.)
The E-Government webpage should be designed around the W3C standards, not whatever proprietary crap Microsoft shovels out.
It's one thing to take advantage of an available technology outside of W3C standards when it's AVAILABLE to all the browsers (like Flash or SVG); it's a completey different thing for a company (i.e. Microsoft) to use it's dominant position to introduce and force proprietary technologies (like ActiveX) that ONLY work with Internet Explorer, thereby only extending peoples' relience on outdated and faulty technology.
What does Microsoft have to lose if major websites decided to adhear to open technologies and set standards? Why their market dominance, of course! If all webpages are created equal, it's the quality of the browser that would determine marketshare.
Who the would Internet Explorer and all its security ridden filth if they have perfectly valid alternatives?
Believe it or not, this is a GOOD thing. Perhaps if Microsoft loses significant market share they'd be forced to improve and secure their browser to compete with Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, Safari, and all the other browsers out there.
Catering to Microsoft's sloppiness and closed proprietary technology is helping no one but Microsoft.
I understand the time constraints and until somebody has a chance to test those other browsers the only real argument is that the copyright office moved ahead without a complete test of what does and doesn't work. Which if all browsers work well enough to submit work then it's a dead point.
I think it goes to show why the Internet needs to be based on standards and not on browsers. Truly this issue shouldn't need to come up. They should be able to create a system that works according to a set standard not a popular browsers.
No company should be allowed to dictate how the internet works. That defeats the purpose and openness of the Inernet. If developers would put their collective foot down I guarantee IE would be as compliant if not more than Firefox or any other browser.
I'm not trying to bash Microsoft this time, but if we leave web standards up to them they would never change or work the way they are suppose to. If it wasn't for Firefox making waves we wouldn't be seeing version 7 until Vista comes out.
Since I know somebody is going to bring up the fact that IE holds 90% of the market or talk about how Firefox or other browser don't support the full W3C recommendations I am just going to say I know. Fully supporting the W3C recommendation would be great, but may not be needed. Having 90% of any market share doesn't dictate a standard. At best it gives only a recommendation.
My point is simply that we need to follow a singular standard defined by a group or organization that doesn't profit or benifit from it's use. If Microsoft was to dictate the standard then they are the only ones who profit and benifit from it's use. You can insert Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in that previous sentance too.
I think this <i>is</i> government favoritism regardless of whether or not the system will work in IE or not. They are clearly already discussing this, demonstrating they had <i>prior knowledge</i> of such issues. As Tim Berners-Lee, this does violate the "e-government" tenets that the executive branch claims to cherish. I am not a fan of today's copyright system, so I do not really ever see using this preregistration system, but I also am a believer in fairness of the government. It doesn't matter that the end result MIGHT or MIGHT NOT work on Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape; the problem is that they would use such a half-assed system and settle for such low standards. Knowing both browsers as a developer, I know that almost anything that can be done with IE can be done with Mozilla, the difference is the specifics of you get there (such as XML objects in JavaScript: IE uses ActiveX, Mozilla uses XML objects). I wouldn't give a damn if Microsoft or any other private site did this (OK, I would, but it's their perfect right). However, when the government is using MY hard-earned dollars to pay crappy employees too much to write crappy code, that pisses me off. Maybe some tax-lovers will disagree with me, but everyone is entitled to their respective opinions.
"If Microsoft was to dictate the standard then they are the only ones who profit and benifit from it's use. You can insert Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in that previous sentance too."
I thought Mozilla was a NON-PROFIT. Now that I stop and think about it, isn't the new Netscape?
I understand the time constraints and until somebody has a chance to test those other browsers the only real argument is that the copyright office moved ahead without a complete test of what does and doesn't work. Which if all browsers work well enough to submit work then it's a dead point.
I think it goes to show why the Internet needs to be based on standards and not on browsers. Truly this issue shouldn't need to come up. They should be able to create a system that works according to a set standard not a popular browsers.
No company should be allowed to dictate how the internet works. That defeats the purpose and openness of the Inernet. If developers would put their collective foot down I guarantee IE would be as compliant if not more than Firefox or any other browser.
I'm not trying to bash Microsoft this time, but if we leave web standards up to them they would never change or work the way they are suppose to. If it wasn't for Firefox making waves we wouldn't be seeing version 7 until Vista comes out.
Since I know somebody is going to bring up the fact that IE holds 90% of the market or talk about how Firefox or other browser don't support the full W3C recommendations I am just going to say I know. Fully supporting the W3C recommendation would be great, but may not be needed. Having 90% of any market share doesn't dictate a standard. At best it gives only a recommendation.
My point is simply that we need to follow a singular standard defined by a group or organization that doesn't profit or benifit from it's use. If Microsoft was to dictate the standard then they are the only ones who profit and benifit from it's use. You can insert Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in that previous sentance too.
I think this <i>is</i> government favoritism regardless of whether or not the system will work in IE or not. They are clearly already discussing this, demonstrating they had <i>prior knowledge</i> of such issues. As Tim Berners-Lee, this does violate the "e-government" tenets that the executive branch claims to cherish. I am not a fan of today's copyright system, so I do not really ever see using this preregistration system, but I also am a believer in fairness of the government. It doesn't matter that the end result MIGHT or MIGHT NOT work on Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape; the problem is that they would use such a half-assed system and settle for such low standards. Knowing both browsers as a developer, I know that almost anything that can be done with IE can be done with Mozilla, the difference is the specifics of you get there (such as XML objects in JavaScript: IE uses ActiveX, Mozilla uses XML objects). I wouldn't give a damn if Microsoft or any other private site did this (OK, I would, but it's their perfect right). However, when the government is using MY hard-earned dollars to pay crappy employees too much to write crappy code, that pisses me off. Maybe some tax-lovers will disagree with me, but everyone is entitled to their respective opinions.
"If Microsoft was to dictate the standard then they are the only ones who profit and benifit from it's use. You can insert Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in that previous sentance too."
I thought Mozilla was a NON-PROFIT. Now that I stop and think about it, isn't the new Netscape?
Since the primary goal should be to reduce taxpayer expenditure, and since the application will be cross-browser tested and certified shortly, AND since it likely works with a multitude of browsers right now, this is a responsible decision that provides service to the vast majority of Internet users right now.
Many thanks to the Library of Congress for maintaining efficient operations.
How is this going to save tax payers money if it ends up in court? Last time I checked it would be late 2006 before testing would be complete. That's not a short time.
Assuming it doesn't work it will cut off several hundred thousand potential copyright holders. Once again how will it save tax payers money if copyright holders end up in court because they lost a copyright due to not being able to pre file?
Of course that all assumes the worst and truthfully there probably wont be that problems. Everything will probably go smoothly for the most part and very few, if any, will be left out.
Any compentent person associated with technology development will tell you that the earlier you catch a problem, the easier it is to solve. Shoveling trash out fast and fixing it later with expensive upgrades doesn't save money in the long run. They are probably going to spend more in customer support from irate users, court costs, and workaround "hacks" later than they will have saved by not testing with the browser that 20% of their customers will use.
There are currently browsers out there which, in "strict" mode, will give you an extremely detailed view of how accurately you track the HTML and CSS standards. If this site and all the others out there wrote to the standards, it would give all Americans an opportunity to engage in business and build solutions around these services. In the long run, that's the type of technological development that saves the real money down the road.
Locking into a single vendor will almost always end up being more expensive in the long run.
Since the primary goal should be to reduce taxpayer expenditure, and since the application will be cross-browser tested and certified shortly, AND since it likely works with a multitude of browsers right now, this is a responsible decision that provides service to the vast majority of Internet users right now.
Many thanks to the Library of Congress for maintaining efficient operations.
How is this going to save tax payers money if it ends up in court? Last time I checked it would be late 2006 before testing would be complete. That's not a short time.
Assuming it doesn't work it will cut off several hundred thousand potential copyright holders. Once again how will it save tax payers money if copyright holders end up in court because they lost a copyright due to not being able to pre file?
Of course that all assumes the worst and truthfully there probably wont be that problems. Everything will probably go smoothly for the most part and very few, if any, will be left out.
Any compentent person associated with technology development will tell you that the earlier you catch a problem, the easier it is to solve. Shoveling trash out fast and fixing it later with expensive upgrades doesn't save money in the long run. They are probably going to spend more in customer support from irate users, court costs, and workaround "hacks" later than they will have saved by not testing with the browser that 20% of their customers will use.
There are currently browsers out there which, in "strict" mode, will give you an extremely detailed view of how accurately you track the HTML and CSS standards. If this site and all the others out there wrote to the standards, it would give all Americans an opportunity to engage in business and build solutions around these services. In the long run, that's the type of technological development that saves the real money down the road.
Locking into a single vendor will almost always end up being more expensive in the long run.
If the Site requires Active X, thats a problem. AFAIK, that only works on IE for Windows which while widely used is NOT universally used.
If it does not require Active X, it will probably work. Worst case scenario for that is the site might look funky and/or require you to disguise your user agent.
Or they coded it halfassed, which pretty much only IE accepts sloppy html code, go figure. I guess since their own developers are not held to any standard of quality, those using their garbage should not either. Funny thing is, IE could lose 50% of its bloat if it only accepted proper html.
Do it right the first time, and it will work everywhere and be cheaper.
If the Site requires Active X, thats a problem. AFAIK, that only works on IE for Windows which while widely used is NOT universally used.
If it does not require Active X, it will probably work. Worst case scenario for that is the site might look funky and/or require you to disguise your user agent.
Or they coded it halfassed, which pretty much only IE accepts sloppy html code, go figure. I guess since their own developers are not held to any standard of quality, those using their garbage should not either. Funny thing is, IE could lose 50% of its bloat if it only accepted proper html.
Do it right the first time, and it will work everywhere and be cheaper.
The Government told the contractor what they wanted and the contractor built it. This is enterprise software engineering, you don't run out and build something like this in PHP and MySQL. And I personally have no problem with a closed system, if that's what they want, it's their decision, not yours.
The Government told the contractor what they wanted and the contractor built it. This is enterprise software engineering, you don't run out and build something like this in PHP and MySQL. And I personally have no problem with a closed system, if that's what they want, it's their decision, not yours.
Dumb and dumber for remember, shorty IE7, is due with tougher security standards and protocols differing from it's lesser cousins IE6 and earlier. The unanswered question is thus, will it work with IE7+???????????????????? Thus by failing to adhere to internet standards and protocols, they are forever doomed, to create extra costs, time and money associated with implementing upgrades to suit. Oh well, Dumb and Dumber strikes again!!!!!!!!!!
Dumb and dumber for remember, shorty IE7, is due with tougher security standards and protocols differing from it's lesser cousins IE6 and earlier. The unanswered question is thus, will it work with IE7+???????????????????? Thus by failing to adhere to internet standards and protocols, they are forever doomed, to create extra costs, time and money associated with implementing upgrades to suit. Oh well, Dumb and Dumber strikes again!!!!!!!!!!
Dumb and dumber for remember, shortly IE7, is due with tougher security standards and protocols differing from it's lesser cousins IE6 and earlier. The unanswered question is thus, will it work with IE7+???????????????????? Thus by failing to adhere to internet standards and protocols, they are forever doomed, to create extra costs, time and money associated with implementing upgrades to suit. Oh well, Dumb and Dumber strikes again!!!!!!!!!!
<< Thus by failing to adhere to internet standards and protocols, they are forever doomed, to create extra costs, time and money associated with implementing upgrades to suit>>
The next version, due in 2006, which is already scheduled and budgeted will support all browsers. Additional testing now would only add additional costs. Let the vendor do their job.
Dumb and dumber for remember, shortly IE7, is due with tougher security standards and protocols differing from it's lesser cousins IE6 and earlier. The unanswered question is thus, will it work with IE7+???????????????????? Thus by failing to adhere to internet standards and protocols, they are forever doomed, to create extra costs, time and money associated with implementing upgrades to suit. Oh well, Dumb and Dumber strikes again!!!!!!!!!!
<< Thus by failing to adhere to internet standards and protocols, they are forever doomed, to create extra costs, time and money associated with implementing upgrades to suit>>
The next version, due in 2006, which is already scheduled and budgeted will support all browsers. Additional testing now would only add additional costs. Let the vendor do their job.
Why waste money on some government interaction tool. Heck, it's good that it's online, forget about browser compatibility. The copyright office can handle other browsers if there's a market for such change (in the actual users of this tool which isn't u or me) and the site is all finished. For now they have to get it up and running.
Why waste money on some government interaction tool. Heck, it's good that it's online, forget about browser compatibility. The copyright office can handle other browsers if there's a market for such change (in the actual users of this tool which isn't u or me) and the site is all finished. For now they have to get it up and running.
Testing the software with more web browsers will cost more taxpayer money and may cause the launch deadline to slip. The vendor supporting the copyright office plans to release new software that will be cross-browser compatible in 2006. There is absolutely no need to spend more tax dollars now, when the features and their corresponding expense are already planned and budgeted for the 2006 release.
The Copyright Office has made a wise decision and should be applauded for maintaining schedule, budget, and effective communication with citizens.
Testing the software with more web browsers will cost more taxpayer money and may cause the launch deadline to slip. The vendor supporting the copyright office plans to release new software that will be cross-browser compatible in 2006. There is absolutely no need to spend more tax dollars now, when the features and their corresponding expense are already planned and budgeted for the 2006 release.
The Copyright Office has made a wise decision and should be applauded for maintaining schedule, budget, and effective communication with citizens.
If software companies and web developers decided to only support and develop based on a set standard that doesn't favor one company over another then it would force all browser to comply. Like I said though it will never happen. Unfortunatly we live in a world were the intrest of big business overrides the common good. Too many people believe that the only way to make money is to lock people into their software or hardware. Instead of doing what benifits the customer and building better support or even better software package most companies focus on proprietary formats and single use hardware.
A good example of this is Microsoft PDF killer. Instead of Microsoft trying to make a better PDF publisher and reader they will create another proprietary format. They will give away both a reader and publisher locking you into the format then sell you the same free program later. And instead of having a Portable Document Format you will end up with a Microsoft Platform Only Format that will just suck.
If software companies and web developers decided to only support and develop based on a set standard that doesn't favor one company over another then it would force all browser to comply. Like I said though it will never happen. Unfortunatly we live in a world were the intrest of big business overrides the common good. Too many people believe that the only way to make money is to lock people into their software or hardware. Instead of doing what benifits the customer and building better support or even better software package most companies focus on proprietary formats and single use hardware.
A good example of this is Microsoft PDF killer. Instead of Microsoft trying to make a better PDF publisher and reader they will create another proprietary format. They will give away both a reader and publisher locking you into the format then sell you the same free program later. And instead of having a Portable Document Format you will end up with a Microsoft Platform Only Format that will just suck.
I find it interesting that all the comments previously made here seem to be posted by persons without disabilities. The evidence of this apparent fact is that none seem to be aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Under this act and this regulation, all government sites MUST be accessible to all users. If the Copyright Office fails to meet that requirement for any period of time, they will be in violation of law.
While I think we are all aware that governments often love to make laws that they fail to follow while they impose them on everyone else . . . I also think that government officials should be held to the same strictness of accountability as the officers of U.S. corporations have been in recent years. Not only is the United States a corporation, but all governments must answer to ALL the people whom they serve.
Google creates an animated doodle that features a boy, a girl, Google's search engine, and a jump rope. But might there be darker, more analytical, more troubling interpretations to this tale?
Data gathered by several companies publishing news readers for both iPhone and iPad suggest that there is a clear difference in when users check out articles via those devices. And anyone wanting to build apps for both devices should heed those lessons.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
Sounds like no one's being excluded at all. But these days, it seems that Cnet has to inflame to get traffic. Pump up that stock price!
Don't tell me it's because "everyone uses it." The reason it's the dominant browser is because it's integrated into the OS. By default, it's what people use who don't know about the alternitives (which is exactly how Microsoft wants it.)
The E-Government webpage should be designed around the W3C standards, not whatever proprietary crap Microsoft shovels out.
It's one thing to take advantage of an available technology outside of W3C standards when it's AVAILABLE to all the browsers (like Flash or SVG); it's a completey different thing for a company (i.e. Microsoft) to use it's dominant position to introduce and force proprietary technologies (like ActiveX) that ONLY work with Internet Explorer, thereby only extending peoples' relience on outdated and faulty technology.
What does Microsoft have to lose if major websites decided to adhear to open technologies and set standards? Why their market dominance, of course! If all webpages are created equal, it's the quality of the browser that would determine marketshare.
Who the would Internet Explorer and all its security ridden filth if they have perfectly valid alternatives?
Believe it or not, this is a GOOD thing. Perhaps if Microsoft loses significant market share they'd be forced to improve and secure their browser to compete with Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, Safari, and all the other browsers out there.
Catering to Microsoft's sloppiness and closed proprietary technology is helping no one but Microsoft.
Sounds like no one's being excluded at all. But these days, it seems that Cnet has to inflame to get traffic. Pump up that stock price!
Don't tell me it's because "everyone uses it." The reason it's the dominant browser is because it's integrated into the OS. By default, it's what people use who don't know about the alternitives (which is exactly how Microsoft wants it.)
The E-Government webpage should be designed around the W3C standards, not whatever proprietary crap Microsoft shovels out.
It's one thing to take advantage of an available technology outside of W3C standards when it's AVAILABLE to all the browsers (like Flash or SVG); it's a completey different thing for a company (i.e. Microsoft) to use it's dominant position to introduce and force proprietary technologies (like ActiveX) that ONLY work with Internet Explorer, thereby only extending peoples' relience on outdated and faulty technology.
What does Microsoft have to lose if major websites decided to adhear to open technologies and set standards? Why their market dominance, of course! If all webpages are created equal, it's the quality of the browser that would determine marketshare.
Who the would Internet Explorer and all its security ridden filth if they have perfectly valid alternatives?
Believe it or not, this is a GOOD thing. Perhaps if Microsoft loses significant market share they'd be forced to improve and secure their browser to compete with Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, Safari, and all the other browsers out there.
Catering to Microsoft's sloppiness and closed proprietary technology is helping no one but Microsoft.
I understand the time constraints and until somebody has a chance to test those other browsers the only real argument is that the copyright office moved ahead without a complete test of what does and doesn't work. Which if all browsers work well enough to submit work then it's a dead point.
I think it goes to show why the Internet needs to be based on standards and not on browsers. Truly this issue shouldn't need to come up. They should be able to create a system that works according to a set standard not a popular browsers.
No company should be allowed to dictate how the internet works. That defeats the purpose and openness of the Inernet. If developers would put their collective foot down I guarantee IE would be as compliant if not more than Firefox or any other browser.
I'm not trying to bash Microsoft this time, but if we leave web standards up to them they would never change or work the way they are suppose to. If it wasn't for Firefox making waves we wouldn't be seeing version 7 until Vista comes out.
Since I know somebody is going to bring up the fact that IE holds 90% of the market or talk about how Firefox or other browser don't support the full W3C recommendations I am just going to say I know. Fully supporting the W3C recommendation would be great, but may not be needed. Having 90% of any market share doesn't dictate a standard. At best it gives only a recommendation.
My point is simply that we need to follow a singular standard defined by a group or organization that doesn't profit or benifit from it's use. If Microsoft was to dictate the standard then they are the only ones who profit and benifit from it's use. You can insert Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in that previous sentance too.
I thought Mozilla was a NON-PROFIT.
Now that I stop and think about it, isn't the new Netscape?
I understand the time constraints and until somebody has a chance to test those other browsers the only real argument is that the copyright office moved ahead without a complete test of what does and doesn't work. Which if all browsers work well enough to submit work then it's a dead point.
I think it goes to show why the Internet needs to be based on standards and not on browsers. Truly this issue shouldn't need to come up. They should be able to create a system that works according to a set standard not a popular browsers.
No company should be allowed to dictate how the internet works. That defeats the purpose and openness of the Inernet. If developers would put their collective foot down I guarantee IE would be as compliant if not more than Firefox or any other browser.
I'm not trying to bash Microsoft this time, but if we leave web standards up to them they would never change or work the way they are suppose to. If it wasn't for Firefox making waves we wouldn't be seeing version 7 until Vista comes out.
Since I know somebody is going to bring up the fact that IE holds 90% of the market or talk about how Firefox or other browser don't support the full W3C recommendations I am just going to say I know. Fully supporting the W3C recommendation would be great, but may not be needed. Having 90% of any market share doesn't dictate a standard. At best it gives only a recommendation.
My point is simply that we need to follow a singular standard defined by a group or organization that doesn't profit or benifit from it's use. If Microsoft was to dictate the standard then they are the only ones who profit and benifit from it's use. You can insert Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Netscape in that previous sentance too.
I thought Mozilla was a NON-PROFIT.
Now that I stop and think about it, isn't the new Netscape?
Many thanks to the Library of Congress for maintaining efficient operations.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8</a>
Assuming it doesn't work it will cut off several hundred thousand potential copyright holders. Once again how will it save tax payers money if copyright holders end up in court because they lost a copyright due to not being able to pre file?
Of course that all assumes the worst and truthfully there probably wont be that problems. Everything will probably go smoothly for the most part and very few, if any, will be left out.
There are currently browsers out there which, in "strict" mode, will give you an extremely detailed view of how accurately you track the HTML and CSS standards. If this site and all the others out there wrote to the standards, it would give all Americans an opportunity to engage in business and build solutions around these services. In the long run, that's the type of technological development that saves the real money down the road.
Locking into a single vendor will almost always end up being more expensive in the long run.
and it was an irresponsible decision made by those who should
know better.
The US Gov't needs to be following its own standards and
regulations (hence the E-Government Act of 2002) and do the right
thing for all Americans.
Many thanks to the Library of Congress for maintaining efficient operations.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8</a>
Assuming it doesn't work it will cut off several hundred thousand potential copyright holders. Once again how will it save tax payers money if copyright holders end up in court because they lost a copyright due to not being able to pre file?
Of course that all assumes the worst and truthfully there probably wont be that problems. Everything will probably go smoothly for the most part and very few, if any, will be left out.
There are currently browsers out there which, in "strict" mode, will give you an extremely detailed view of how accurately you track the HTML and CSS standards. If this site and all the others out there wrote to the standards, it would give all Americans an opportunity to engage in business and build solutions around these services. In the long run, that's the type of technological development that saves the real money down the road.
Locking into a single vendor will almost always end up being more expensive in the long run.
and it was an irresponsible decision made by those who should
know better.
The US Gov't needs to be following its own standards and
regulations (hence the E-Government Act of 2002) and do the right
thing for all Americans.
works on IE for Windows which while widely used is NOT universally
used.
If it does not require Active X, it will probably work. Worst case
scenario for that is the site might look funky and/or require you to
disguise your user agent.
Do it right the first time, and it will work everywhere and be cheaper.
works on IE for Windows which while widely used is NOT universally
used.
If it does not require Active X, it will probably work. Worst case
scenario for that is the site might look funky and/or require you to
disguise your user agent.
Do it right the first time, and it will work everywhere and be cheaper.
and shows no favoritism towards a certainly technology or vendor.
and shows no favoritism towards a certainly technology or vendor.
The next version, due in 2006, which is already scheduled and budgeted will support all browsers. Additional testing now would only add additional costs. Let the vendor do their job.
The next version, due in 2006, which is already scheduled and budgeted will support all browsers. Additional testing now would only add additional costs. Let the vendor do their job.
The site could work on every browser ever invented, but unless people take the time AND are paid to test and certified, who knows??
I'm glad we're saving some tax money here. The PERFECT WORLD costs more.
The site could work on every browser ever invented, but unless people take the time AND are paid to test and certified, who knows??
I'm glad we're saving some tax money here. The PERFECT WORLD costs more.
Testing the software with more web browsers will cost more taxpayer money and may cause the launch deadline to slip. The vendor supporting the copyright office plans to release new software that will be cross-browser compatible in 2006. There is absolutely no need to spend more tax dollars now, when the features and their corresponding expense are already planned and budgeted for the 2006 release.
The Copyright Office has made a wise decision and should be applauded for maintaining schedule, budget, and effective communication with citizens.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=a5805525-b1d2-4f6c-8da2-7ea9ec465c09" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=a5805525-b1d2-4f6c-8da2-7ea9ec465c09</a>
Testing the software with more web browsers will cost more taxpayer money and may cause the launch deadline to slip. The vendor supporting the copyright office plans to release new software that will be cross-browser compatible in 2006. There is absolutely no need to spend more tax dollars now, when the features and their corresponding expense are already planned and budgeted for the 2006 release.
The Copyright Office has made a wise decision and should be applauded for maintaining schedule, budget, and effective communication with citizens.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=a5805525-b1d2-4f6c-8da2-7ea9ec465c09" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=a5805525-b1d2-4f6c-8da2-7ea9ec465c09</a>
If software companies and web developers decided to only support and develop based on a set standard that doesn't favor one company over another then it would force all browser to comply. Like I said though it will never happen. Unfortunatly we live in a world were the intrest of big business overrides the common good. Too many people believe that the only way to make money is to lock people into their software or hardware. Instead of doing what benifits the customer and building better support or even better software package most companies focus on proprietary formats and single use hardware.
A good example of this is Microsoft PDF killer. Instead of Microsoft trying to make a better PDF publisher and reader they will create another proprietary format. They will give away both a reader and publisher locking you into the format then sell you the same free program later. And instead of having a Portable Document Format you will end up with a Microsoft Platform Only Format that will just suck.
If software companies and web developers decided to only support and develop based on a set standard that doesn't favor one company over another then it would force all browser to comply. Like I said though it will never happen. Unfortunatly we live in a world were the intrest of big business overrides the common good. Too many people believe that the only way to make money is to lock people into their software or hardware. Instead of doing what benifits the customer and building better support or even better software package most companies focus on proprietary formats and single use hardware.
A good example of this is Microsoft PDF killer. Instead of Microsoft trying to make a better PDF publisher and reader they will create another proprietary format. They will give away both a reader and publisher locking you into the format then sell you the same free program later. And instead of having a Portable Document Format you will end up with a Microsoft Platform Only Format that will just suck.
While I think we are all aware that governments often love to make laws that they fail to follow while they impose them on everyone else . . . I also think that government officials should be held to the same strictness of accountability as the officers of U.S. corporations have been in recent years. Not only is the United States a corporation, but all governments must answer to ALL the people whom they serve.