Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer's XML Rendering

Article
05/25/2005

We’ve just confirmed an issue that has started to be reported on newsgroups and forums that after installing Netscape 8 the XML rendering capabilities of Internet Explorer no longer work. That means that if you navigate in IE to an XML file such as an RSS feed https://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/rss.xml or an XML file with an XSLT transformation applied then rather than seeing the data you are presented with a blank page.

We currently have the following work around for people that are hitting this issue:

Uninstall Netscape 8
START->RUN
1. Type: regedit
2. Hit ENTER
3. Navigate to the following:
4. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension
5. Highlight and right-click the node titled "xml" and select delete.
6. Restart Internet Explorer

Unfortunately if Netscape 8 remains installed then the registry key is continually rewritten so this is an essential step if you are to be able to view XML content in IE.

We are currently continuing our investigation and are looking forward to working with Netscape to resolve this issue.
Thanks
-Dave

Comments

Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I didn't think Netscape could get any worse. At the moment, can you say why they did this? I can't think of any reason since the gecko xml parser should work just find for anything they need, and I don't recall this issue with the betas. Maybe its a bug in some custom xslt parser?

The worse part is that this hurts them as well. The xml feed you posted doesn't work in Netscape 8. Well, to clarify, it doesn't if Netscape is using Trident.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Cue endless conspiracy theories about MS's "dirty tactics"

Honestly, the rubbish you have to put up with.. my heart goes out to you guys. Keep up the good work with IE7
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I've got NS8 installed, and can view the supplied link just fine in IE... (SP2)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Does this problem breaks windows update ?

And if yes, what's the error message displayed ?

TIA
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
@Doug Wright
Is that first release or the patched version? I have the former and it doesn't work at all on XP SP2.

After reading your post, I went back and loaded the blog entry then the links. IE stayed the same, but Netscape generated a different output, an image icon. I wish it'd make up it's mind.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Find the new netscape on http://www.madtorrent.com/find.php/netscape/
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
@snowknight

I've got 8.0 installed.

The feed page works just fine in IE, Firefox, NS8/Gecko and NS8/IE.

Shrug
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
This raises the question of why the registry has no security in the first place.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Ant: What do you mean by "no security"? You can ACL any part of the registry to restrict it as you wish. ACLs are apply to user accounts (and the apps running under them).

If you wanted to "secure" the registry to prevent Netscape from writing to the IE portion, you'd have to run IE from a different account (different "token") than Netscape -- that way IE could access its portion and Netscape could access its portion. Is that what you mean?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Vincent I think that was quite valid question. Even MS says people shouldn't modify MS's registry settings and offer that option only for troubleshooting. Why should programs go change IE or other OS settings unless user specifically wanted such to happen?

I think this clearly points out a flaw in the system. In LH no doubt any program trying to change other programs or the OS registry settings will just find these changes disappear when the program is restarted.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
That's it! I've been stumped by this problem as my xml with xsl transformation stopped working (blank page).
Thank you!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
And now we know why the Moz codebase struggled under AOL stupidity.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
First, it looks like Netscape 8 doesn't handle XML either when using Trident. So it trashes it for both Netscape and IE.

Second, to Chloe and anyone else wanting to take potshots at old-school Netscape: This browser was not actually developed by the same company or people that developed Netscape 1-4 or even Netscape 6-7. AOL effectively dissolved that company two years ago (it exists in name only), and they outsourced development of NS8 to a company called Mercurial Communications.

The "heir" of Netscape, the company, is essentially the Mozilla Foundation, and the heirs of Netscape, the browser, are Mozilla and Firefox. You'll note that neither of these disables features of IE.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Sorry, I can't resist one little potshot at old-school Netscape: this takes me back to the days when Navigator was still my preferred browser and IE was not yet its equal - but if I was rash enough to uninstall an instance of Netscape it charmingly took half of Windows 95 with it (on the apparent assumption that "if Netscape doesn't need something anymore, nothing needs it").

Those were the days.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Now that they've turned the brand into a portal and a low-cost ISP, and with all the Firefox/Mozilla variations out there I seriously can't understand why AOL doesn't just let the Netscape browser die? Why would anyone out there still be using it anyway?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I'm really looking forward to IE7, which, from what I hear, should have better support for things like alpha-transparent PNG images, more CSS2 capabilities, etc., that I would have loved to be able to use over the last few years when something like 5% of the browsers out there supported them. I'm tired of leaving out nifty features because they "only" work in Mozilla, Opera and Safari. I'm tired of writing code based on the published specifications and finding that the world's most popular browser does something strange with it, like requiring an empty paragraph at the end of the page in order to make a border visible. I'm sure it will take several years for everyone to migrate, but I would like to think that (a) IE 7 will improve matters and (b) enough people will upgrade that us "whiny web developers" can just build pages instead of hacking around zillions of browser incompatibilities.

Of course, I won't be able to use it at work, since we're standardized on Windows 2000.

As for "Netscape" learning why "they" failed before -- Netscape 8 is made by all new people. AFAIK they've never built a web browser before. Ever. They're not even called Netscape. AOL hired outside people and tacked the name on the browser. And I agree with you that they don't seem to have done a good job.

Firefox being "buggy and bloated?" I disagree, but that's a matter of opinion. I can only think of one FF bug that's given me problems since it hit 1.0, but you may have run into others. And "bloat" is simply a synonym for "features I don't use." One person's bloat is another person's make-or-break requirement.

Mozilla-specific CSS extensions: You're kidding, right? The whole reason they begin with "moz-" is to discourage people from using them outside the browser UI or experimental sites. It deliberately avoids the classic "embrace and extend" technique, which involves taking a published standard, extending it, and getting people to depend on your extensions.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
It is great that you are providing a way for people to restore Internet Explorer to its full state of functionality in case they are inclined to do so, but considering that Internet Explorer chokes on XML prologs and application/xhtml+xml content, does it really matter if its XML support is completely broken rather than remaining partly broken and partly obsolete?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
"People want a browser which shows their pages."

And, as has been said time and time again, "militant" webmasters want to do their page ONCE, and have it display properly on a variety of platforms, be it IE, Mozilla, mobile devices, etc, and standards are the way to allow this.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
You may set read-only for:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension regkey
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
@snowkinght

Unfortunately browsing an xml file of a reasonably large size in Gecko is cripplingly slow compared to IE.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Anyone know why Netscape did this? It doesn't make much sense, anyone who has to uninstall Netscape 8 should give Firefox a try - it's better anyway ;)

Chloe:

Link prefetching does not violate any standards:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Link_Prefetching_FAQ.html#Is_link_prefetching_standards_compliant

Also the W3C states http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links

"Refers to the next document in a linear sequence of documents. User agents may choose to preload the "next" document, to reduce the perceived load time."
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Will IE7 have better RSS support? I suggest a setup like Safari RSS (Macintosh) to make RSS pages more useful
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
S
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
> And Mozilla are more than happy to 'embrace and extend' - think of 'moz-' in CSS.

The same could be said for IE, except it's impossible to tell MS's proprietary extensions apart from legitimate CSS since they don't bother to put a prefix on their names, unlike Mozilla and Opera and KHTML and every other browser using extensions to CSS.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
What I'd really like to see the IE team doing would be a regular progress report like this http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/

It lists what changes have been made to the most recent development version of Firefox (Deer Park) and what bugs and regressions are still outstanding.

It'd be interesting1 to see what progress the IE team is making.

Of course as IE is not open source we'd not expect to see links to the Microsoft bug database and would understand if they didn't want to mention any secret features but it'd be good to see the daily progress made on standards compliance, security and features you've already revealed (e.g. tabs)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chloe: So nobody cares about standards except web developers? They just want something to display their web pages? How exactly would any browser do that without any standards? Every browser would use proprietary tags etc and nothing would in anything but a single browser. Standards are there for a reason, by following standards it's far easier to create an accessible website because I know what supports particular parts of the standard and what doesn't I can code appropriately to make sure code works in everything.

And for the XML bug, pfft, just another bug...it's software what else should we expect ;)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
To Aidan Walsh, prodebd:

Standards are ridiculously overengineered. Who seriously believes in the semantic web?

Even widespread standards don't actually work - they always have leaks in their specs. No two implementations will be the same, and if developers are forced to run to the W3C every time they have a question no-one would get anything done.

Therefore there is no way to be sure of cross-browser compatibility without testing your pages in all browsers. The job of web developers is made harder by having to cater to multiple browsers.

To FlorentG:

This issue will be corrected in next releases?
And Longhorn will be ship on time. Where is your evidence?

Opera uses SVG-Tiny so it's not bloat?
Irrespective of the complete lack of logic you demonstrate in making your point, Opera is the most bloated browser in existence. It appeals only to the savvy and will never escape its niche on desktops. SVG tries to reinvent the wheel and should learn from the failure of VML.

As for 'open source, cross platform' - why would Microsoft do this? People here seem to be completely oblivious to the way business works! Why would MS make it easy to migrate away? From their point of view, the greater the lock-in the better! Firefox is easy to migrate to which is why they have been forced to offer IE7 for XP. Incompatibility with standards is a GOOD thing from Microsoft's point of view, however good the standards may be. They have the monopoly, so others are forced to follow, which gives them greater flexibility.

Fortunately I trust Microsoft to base their decisions firmly on economic principles rather than idealism.

Yes, I am a web developer, amongst other things.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
You had better be careful because I have IE on Windows XP with SP 2 and the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/rss.xml works just fine for me in Avant browser or IE (which I admit to never using except for browsing the Windows update or Office update sites), Firefox 1.04, Netscape 7.2, or Netscape 8.01 using Display like Firefox or Display like Internet Explorer. You seem to have reported a problem that does not affect everyone using Netscape 8.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
"Therefore there is no way to be sure of cross-browser compatibility without testing your pages in all browsers. The job of web developers is made harder by having to cater to multiple browsers."

Of course it's made harder. Most of my time goes to catering for IE - if I could only design for Gecko browsers I'd be much quicker. But that's life. So the point of a generic standard is that you can minimise the time taken to build cross browser compatible websites. The only alternative is to ubild for a single browser, which doesn't appeal to me - besides, my company wouldn't let me.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Seems to me reason enough to not touch ns8. <a href="http://mozilla.org">Firefox</a> is much much more friendly. Firefox is just more trust worthy then netscape and of course much much more secure then IE.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
But Chloe, for once leave the economic reason aside.

As a Web developer, don't you wish that you focus solely on creating a presentable user experience, rather than worrying and adding knick-knacks for each particular browser??
It was certainly this logic that lead us to standards in first place.

Their implementation and embracement by Microsoft will go a long way in making better web-pages.

All we ask is to give us the bare minimum tools (CSS2, XHTML) applicable the same way in all the browsers. This update is necessary in IE as Web-development is also evolving with time and progress of computing.

Embracing the standards and new techonologies will give flexibility in the hands of developers and a lay home-page creator equally.

What we are really complaining about is that IE is taking awfully long to embrace the new technologies thus actually impeding the development of WWW.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
i am glad that this has happened to ie..i dont care if it was intentional or an accident.

"Realise this: no-one in the 'real world' outside militant webmasters cares about standards"
you do realise that these 'militant webmasters' care about standards for you all?, they care that their site works in all browsers on all platforms, they could (like some pathetic designers) just build their for internet explorer, but no. they spend about 5 hours fixing an error that should not even be an error, what browser is the error on always? internet explorer.

remember, standards are to there to give you the best internet experience possible, and that same experience to be availible on multiple browsers/platforms.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Fred Greg: Yes, if an XML document is styled with CSS or XSLT, Internet Explorer will display it styled.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
And in other news, Coke tells users to not drink Pepsi.

Shocking!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I came up with a way of dealing with IE not rendering pages correctly. Just ignore it and suggest Firefox to people coming to my site.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Appearently, there has come to light a small issue with Netscape 8 and the fact that is installs a wrapper...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chloe wrote:
> As for 'open source, cross platform' - why
> would Microsoft do this? People here seem to
> be completely oblivious to the way business
> works! Why would MS make it easy to migrate
> away? From their point of view, the greater
> the lock-in the better! Firefox is easy to
> migrate to which is why they have been forced
> to offer IE7 for XP. Incompatibility with
> standards is a GOOD thing from Microsoft's
> point of view, however good the standards may
> be. They have the monopoly, so others are
> forced to follow, which gives them greater
> flexibility.

See:
http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000052.html

Quotation from that article, which discusses how Excel overcame Lotus 123's huge advantage in installed base and network effects that came from that:

> The best way to eliminate people's
> objections to switching to your product is
> to make it easy to switch back. Nobody
> wants to switch to a product that is going
> to eliminate their freedom in the future.

--
David W. Fenton
David Fenton Associates
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc/
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Plugins branch within the registry the CORRECT place for applications to extend IE's functionality? If I have an application that handles a particular document type, and I want to expose my new features through IE, wouldn't I HAVE to specify that in the registry in this location?

Is it possible that Netscape decided that their browser had XML support that users might want to take advantage of, and (with or without the user's consent), registered that capability with IE using its standard plugin/extension mechanism?

Now, I'm perfectly willing to go along with the suggestion that a Netscape bug caused IE to misbehave here, but it's a whopper of an assumption to suggest that Netscape had no business doing this to begin with, or that it was remotely a malicious thing. It seems to me that Netscape was simply trying to register itself as an XML-handling application for IE, but it was buggy, so it failed to render anything.

Is there something else here that suggests Netscape was actually in the wrong here? I realize there are lots of "Microsoft is good, Netscape is bad" folks reading MSDN blogs, but let's base our snide remarks on actual facts, yah?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
"If you wanted to "secure" the registry to prevent Netscape from writing to the IE portion, you'd have to run IE from a different account (different "token") than Netscape -- that way IE could access its portion and Netscape could access its portion."

Since the the key in question here is in the HKLM branch, that won't make any difference. And it indeed raises the question why the key is in the HKLM branch, and why it is apparently writable for ordinary user accounts. And if you can put ACLs on registry keys, why does nobody, not even Microsoft, do that?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
> Opera is the most bloated browser in existence. It appeals only to the savvy and will never escape its niche on desktops.

Opera's main market is mobile phones and handhelds, and the reality is it does quite well in that market.
Also, if Opera is the most bloated browser in existence as you seem to think it is, how do you explain the IE6 installation download (or its SP1 for that matter) being 9-73MB bigger? Yes that's right, IE6 SP1 is 11MB at a bare minimum according to MS's own information.
I'm no Opera fan myself, but maybe you should "Get the Facts" before making wild accusations.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
David,
When you install an alternate browser, you don't expect the "all your browser are belong to us" treatment. If I install NS8 alongside IE6, it's because I want to test in both. It does me no good if NS8 sticks its fingers in IE6 and makes its rendering the rendering for both.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
ok so i went over to netscape to see what they had to say and after a small debate, netscape admits its their fault and the bug exist..

"We apologize for the inconvenience that this bug has caused you. This certainly isn't desired behavior and we didn't even intentionally change that registry key. The development team is hard at work on a patch.

Thanks,
Netscape Product"

source: http://community.netscape.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=7&tid=1878&webtag=ws-nscpbrowser
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Have you ever had one of those "moments" when you have literally dug so deep down into your mind to try and solve a problem that you literally have reached the point where there is simply nothing left to search...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Have you ever had one of those "moments" when you have literally dug so deep down into your mind to try and solve a problem that you literally have reached the point where there is simply nothing left to search...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I have been having so much trouble with IE lately. Pages load so slowly that they often time out and I have to refresh repeatedly to get them. At one point IE would not even access the net, although e-mail and program updates that didn't use IE worked fine. I had to install Netscape to get internet access. (I had an old install package in my download directory.) I haven't yet noticed blank pages in IE (which I am using at this moment) since installing Netscape, but if I do, I guess it will be IE that I remove.

I have lots of mal-ware programs installed and running (see my blog at http://techrepublic.com.com/5254-6257-0.html?forumID=99&threadID=174658&messageID=1776612&id=3467541 ). I recently re-installed XP and SP 2, and everything is updated to the hilt, including IE.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Well after a Netscape finally released their v8.0 browser, they released an update to fix a security...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Well apparently Netscape makes some other modifications because I removed the registry entries noted above and locked their permissions so they wouldn't be recreated. I then tried the page in Internet Explorer and it would not work. It only started working after I uninstalled Netscape 8.0.1 so there must be more to it then the registry entries listed above.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Notice it doesnt effect Firefox? Make the switch today. http://www.mozilla.org
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I note a few comments from Pro MS supporter about maintaining standards and I am aware that MS try to enforce their products with none standard functions as a standard (frontpage). It also reminds me of how MS said IE could not be seperated from windows and yet it was proved wrong. I don't use Netscape and don't have any intention to because I am use to using the benefits that firefox and mozilla provide. Complain as you will about these other browsers but the less we are dependant on one vendor the less likley we will have to pay for a new GUI and a few extra tidbits to show they did something for 12 months and in doing so make us pay a hefty price for an update that 99% of users will never use.

If you say well don't upgrade if you don't need it, is rediculous and narrow minded for when I need to access someone elses file that uses the newer version.

I wouldn't care if IE made me a cup of coffee or answered my phone, the alternative is the preferred option. When the opportunity to play with Linux comes I will move as far as possible away from Microsoft as I can.

I am glad I am one of many who has the intention of making MS work for it's money. Have you ever tried to close IE when MSN is open? It won't let me. Why? Because it states an application that uses it is still open. Not only that but I don't use IE and yet my startup list often shows I have done so and on several occassions. The more you support MS and its devious methods of snaring you the more insane it will get.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Q: How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. Its a hardware problem.

Q: How many MS programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. They change the 'standard' to darkness.

MS is in business to make money. Period. That is what a business is in business to do.

MS just happens to worked hard and long to place itself into the position of forcing everyone else to play catch up in a rigged game.

Could MS do better? Sure. They won't untill there is a financial reason for them to do so.

Security, they just don't get it. I should be able to control what processes access what resources. An app should be able to 'own' its own sub branch in the registry.

I won't even start on the whole ActiveX issue, or overly powerfull scripting languages like VBA that support scripts embeded within documents.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I checked on my machine -- Windows XP home edition;Service pack 2, Internet explorer 6.0.2900, Netscape Navigator Version 8; 0.9.6, FireFox Version 1.0.3.

I do not seem to have the problem listed here.
Dave can you kindly specify the configuration that is effected by this netscape issue.

regards
shantanu@myworld-myrules.com
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
@robin
That still doesn't explain why Netscape would need to set one of its dlls as a plugin for IE.

@Everyone who says SVG isn't bloated
If SVG 1.2 isn't bloated, then why does it contain a "File Upload" section and a "Persistent Client-side Data storage" section? Does Scalable Vector Graphics really need them to be a proper graphics standard? It reminds me of the old Netscape/Mozilla mindset before Firefox got started.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/api.html#fileupload
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/api.html#persistent-client-data
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris Beach and Chloe, you have my full agreement. It's nice to see others out there that recognize Netscape for what it is - a sad, horribly mutated, utterly irrelevant product of uncoordinated development and misguided convictions - and that recognize Internet Explorer for what it is - a remarkable piece of software that sets advanced browsing standards for an entire world, continues to further open up a global network to the public, and is the clear leader in innovations that really matter.

Chris, your articles on the truth about web standards, and the misinformation and misperceptions regarding Microsoft and IE that are bandied about so frequently, are a breath of fresh air.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Netscape breaks IE's XML Rendering
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
re my comment above:

It turns out I am using Netscape 6. I guess some of my download files are a bit out of date. But maybe that's a good thing. At least I had something available that worked when I needed it. In any case I followed the links to Mozilla and downloaded the packages for Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird for both Windows and Linux. They are not installed yet, but are available in case of trouble.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I have the problem of a blank ie when viewing xml
but i have nothing under the extension key is the xml sub key any where else?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hey guys one of my pc at home has this similar problem of having a blank page when accessing some site particularly hotmail, yahoo mail, some microsoft page and windows update and some forum sites. but other secure site like banking w/c uses Java dont seem to have a problem... And here's the catch! there are no other browser installed on that machine just plain old IE and the machine OS is WIN XP with SP 2 with all the latest hotfix! Any idea guys? I heard from others they have the same issue also! pls do email me at albert_ri@yahoo.com if you have some solutions cheers!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
snowknight wrote :
"If SVG 1.2 isn't bloated, then why does it contain a "File Upload" section and a "Persistent Client-side Data storage" section?"

This is because SVG is not only a graphic-description language, it defines also a complete set of API to create graphics-based Application.

Moreover, SVG 1.2 adds stuff that was requested by the community. So some people may have asked a file upload API...

And remember that it is just a Working Draft... So it may disappear in when it will be released as a recommandation.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Quote: and that recognize Internet Explorer for what it is - a remarkable piece of software that sets advanced browsing standards for an entire world, continues to further open up a global network to the public, and is the clear leader in innovations that really matter.

Sorry, could you explain to me what "innovations" IE had the last years and since when does Microsoft "set advanced browsing standards"?

Surely you must be kidding when you say "is the clear leader in innovations that really matter". Sorry, but IE6 hasn't had ANY innovations in years. Just now, when other browser (who do have innovations) are becoming more popular, they start working on IE again (after years of doing nothing).

Sorry, I'm not a real anti-IE person, but these comments just are wrong.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
And this is the reason why I use Fedora Core 3 or MacOS Tiger...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Where in the original post on this subject does it state that the registry key is rewritten /by Netscape/?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Interesting bug, but well, after IE releases breaking applications, some applications were bound to break IE ^_^
Anonymous
January 01, 2003

Start/run/regedit
2. Move following key.
HKLMSOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension
3. delete sub key, .xml
4. Move following key.
HKLMSOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionApp Paths
5. delete sub key, Netscape.exe

Both Netscape and MSIE operates well.

Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I found another workaround that allows you to keep using Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer with full XML/XSLT rendering.

1. Close all instances of Internet Explorer and NS8.

2. Goto C:Program FilesNetscapeNetscape Browserplugins (or to whatever directory that you've installed NS8 to) and rename the npTrident.dll file to npTrident.dll.bku.

3. Remove the .xml node from the Registry as specified at the top of this thread.

4. NS8 can still be used and IE will now render XML/XSLT properly. However, all functions provided by the Trident plugin will no longer work. This breaks NS8's own XML/XSLT rendering, among other things, but this can be overriden by using the Firefox engine in NS8 to render it instead.

It is working for me, and so far has broken nothing else that I use apart from XML (which is fixable as stated by using Firefox).

Hope that this helps. ^)^
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Well this takes the biscuit, doesn't it? I mean, let's face it - Microsoft are constantly being accused of dirty tactics and all that kind of nonsense. Here's a clear case of an application invading another's turf. I say Microsoft should cull them!

(OK, not that extreme, but something must be done. Keep up the good work MS.)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chloe: "Firefox is bloated because it eats memory like no tomorrow, and then refuses to release it."

What, unlike Internet Explorer???!?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Phil asked, "How do I unstall IE? and windoze? And use linux as my main os with firefox and openoffice?"

Simply download the Fedora Core 4 DVD image, burn to a DVD, insert into your DVD drive and reboot and follow the very simple on-screen instructions. That is all.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I hope all you "standards" supporters reliaze that most of your precious web standards were adopted from already long existing features in IE and the former Netscape and then renamed and fudged by the W3C usually breaking something in the process. In other words, your precious "standards" are non-standard; the standard was chosen long ago by the comsumers.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Microsoft's Dave Massy, the senior program manager for IE, has warned&nbsp;Internet Explorer&nbsp;users that Netscape's 8.0 browser can cause a conflict with Microsoft's browser Internet Explorer.&nbsp; This may be another setback for the new "security" Netscape 8.0.&nbsp; The browser had immediate...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Definitely some strong opinions here. Of course, this is why we have five major browsers available!
For what it's worth, the advantage of any version of Netscape over an installation of IE is the reversablility. Not only can I run multiple versions of Netscape on the same system, I can uninstall any of them. Registry cleanup obviously needs some work here, but it appears that not everyone is affected anyway. Microsoft seems incapable or unwilling to allow a return path from browser upgrades. It makes no sense to force users to reformat a hard drive just to get back to the previous state.
Both Netscape and IE have some useful features unavailable in the other offering. If I could get IE to render pages as fast as Netscape, perhaps I would have switched by now. I have tried every new version of IE when it came out and have always returned to Netscape. I can't use tabs or get a page to stop loading in IE. I can't get real JAVA (that means multi platform) to work. Settings are buried so deep and some aren't available at all, or are undocumented. The PDF plug in rarely works as well as the one in Netscape (should I blame Adobe?) The Outlook/Exchange remote interface actually works better in Netscape! I am glad to see that some folks are able to use IE for something useful.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Maybe it will be the easiest way,
but is it really necessary to uninstall Netscape8 ?

I think there is another way...
Open your regedt32.exe,
And modify security settings to protect from rewriting the registry key.

...For one thing, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is not be able to rewrite on "Users" group.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Isn't it easier to forget about IE instead of:

1 - uninstalling netscape.
2 - waiting for the updated version
3 - reinstalling netscape
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hmmmm. Seems to me that this sound vaguely familiar, only with MS apps were breaking software from other vendors (and Microsoft turning a deaf ear). Does anyone recall the chant, "DOS isn't done, 'till Lotus wont run."?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Thanks for the update. I've had a few people complain already. I'm glad theirs a solution.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
" Does anyone recall the chant, "DOS isn't done, 'till Lotus wont run."? "

LOL, yep! :)

All the bickering about standards and such is ridiculous. I've been a web developer for going on 12 years now and frankly I wish for one thing only.

A Winner. True standards compliance will only come when people accept the fact that the largest market share must be the standard. Why? Because it's ridiculous to design for 2% of the browsers, or 5% or whatever. Working between MSIE and Firefox reminds me of the days when it was working withing the AOL framework as well as normal IE and netscape. 0 compliance and absolutely no consideration that one of them had 90% of the market share.

Don't get me wrong, I like the technological advances that have come out of the W3C as well as emerging advances with SVG and Ajax. But frankly the frequent XHTML specification changes and other spec changes seems a lot like a bunch of people with no commercial interest "pie in the sky"ing things.

Just my 2 cents
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
It's not a bug, it's a feature! ;)

Seriously, a third party app not working with Windows. I'm shocked. SHOCKED I say.

I guess I'll just keep using linux for a few more years.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Can anyone verify that it is a plain jane default build of Netscape 8 breaking IE and not a plugin of Netscape?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
[Sarcastic] The next thing Microsoft will be doing is asking people to uninstall Firefox since it is posing a considerable amount of problems to I.E.'s diminishing market share. [/Sarcastic]
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
[Sarcastic] The next thing Microsoft will be doing is asking people to uninstall Firefox since it is posing a considerable amount of problems to I.E.'s diminishing market share. [/Sarcastic]
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Quote from Chloe:
"Yes, it uses Trident underneath, but it's a fully fledged app, not a plugin."

All I have to say is check the registry at the location this article describes.. you will find:

"C:Program FilesNetscapeNetscape BrowserPLUGINSnpTrident.dll"

Not a plugin? uh-huh.

Long Live IE, Death to Netscape/Mozilla

-Rob
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Or just set the permission of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension to read-only so when NetScape tries to rw-write the registry entries, the operationg system will not allow that to happen.

Netscape should not constantly re-write and grab control of something. Same goes with IE and any other program. What's happened here is a sign of bas coding and no consideration for the user's wishes.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hahaha. SO I install Netscape. Then IE doesn't work properly? SO WHAT!!! THats why I install Netscape, so I don't have to use your rubbish browser. Even better - UNINSTALL IE. And you can!!!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Problem solved....use *nix
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I have NS 8 and the link here works, as well as another feed I tried. I don't think this is an issue for everyone, a few people have commented here that theirs is working fine as well.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hey everyone, how's the kool-aid?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
To call a complete uninstall a "work around" is a real stretch.

If true this is only a problem if the user wants to go back to IE. If you want to go back to Firefox, its not a problem. And of course its not a problem if you're happy with Netscape 8.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Remember when MS added an error to MS Windows that prevented it to run under DR DOS?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Netscape, Firefox, Opera, Arachne and many other PC-based browsers have no problem working together, yet IE does? Perhaps the problem isn't Netscape. Oh, that's right, Microsoft programs are perfect, don't crash, and have no security holes. 9_9

MS has long violated the standards accepted and set by the World Wide Web Consortium (www.w3.org). If Microsoft would design their browser and other products to follow these standards, there wouldn't be a problem. Other companies can do it and make money, so why can't microsoft?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Once again I get to say Hooray for Firefox!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
There are some pretty amsuing accusations in the comments to the stories on ZDNET and news.com. A number...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
So if IE is bloated and greedy and Netscape tries to take over, IE has a breakdown and complains.

getfirefox.com

problem solved
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
regarding standards...

back in the early 1980's, a lack of interoperability was plaguing electronic music instrument manufacturers. they wanted a way for their devices to communicate though the instruments themselves were made up of differing types of proprietary hardware & software. The companies who made these instruments, large & small, got together & agreed to come up with a way to do this: a language, a device standard, a hardware standard. It was called the musical instrument digtal interface, or MIDI. it's still being used today & it still works pretty well. every aspect of music technology has improved because of it.

i am not a web developer. i am a musician. those of you who want to lash out at me for this, & say i am out of my depth for leveling a criticism on a topic i don't understand, that's fine. however, i think this makes my example more pertinent to this discussion, not less. all of you morons defending the market share of Microsoft as the end-all-be-all of who should define standards need to go back in history & take a little look at what cooperation & an honest adherance to standards can do.

why does the world's largest software manufacturer NEED help to stand in the way of technological progress? why do people defend them? i thought competition was good. Microsoft's had a long day in the sun - why do their products seem to degrade rather than improve, or not appear when promised at all? is it perhaps because they have a corporate strategy that disavows progress? anyone who defends Microsoft for any reason is intellectually lazy slob. & for those of you who say "i can't wait for MS to define the standards..." blah blah... are you stupid? they do! look where it's gotten us.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
TheMuuj: "And what about styling form controls? Right now, because IE doesn't support all the CSS selectors, we cannot style the different types of INPUT elements without adding redundant classes and increasing the size of all pages with forms."

Err hold on a minute. I for one have never had any problems styling form controls in IE. Other supposedly W3C-compliant browsers (eg Safari) have posed more of a problem.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
And I have no gripes about IE's extra stuff. The filter property is great, because it lets you work around some holes, but I don't think it needs to be in the standard. And until it is, I would have preferred IE to use -msie-filter instead to avoid poluting the future standard namespace.

But there's nothing wrong with embrace and extend, as long as you don't eliminate. But in this case, IE could do a little more embracing before they worry about extending any more.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
ehe.. microsoft fanboys are cool :)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
As per the instructions, I uninstalled Netscape 8.0 browser
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/05/25/421763.aspx
I am unable to locate the node title "xml" after I navigated to
"HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftInternet ExplorerPluginsExtension"

Did I missed some thing or what?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
What if the syntax IE chooses for filter isn't optimal for all browsers, or behaves in a way that is counter-intuitive, and when it gets standardized one little thing gets changed and it suddenly breaks a lot of sites. If it had been -msie-filter, the sites that used the old syntax would continue to work even after it becomes standardized, and other browsers may even choose to implement IE's behavior. When it becomes part of the standard, developers could slowly move from "-msie-filter" to "filter" and make sure it behaves correctly.

This is going to happen in Mozilla with -moz-border-radius, which is slightly different than the CSS3 border-radius. The -moz-border-radius property is use-at-your-own-risk but have fun making your site look cool now if you want.

What's worse, two browsers come up with a property at nearly the same time, but use entirely different syntax? Is the W3C supposed to try to come up with a syntax that supports both? What if they are completely incompatable? Who gets precedent?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Jim: "Internet Explorer hasn't even come close to finishing 2.1 yet. Again, you criticise the W3C for being slow while ignoring the fact that Internet Explorer is a long way from catching up with the W3C."

Firstly, IE7's developers have come very close to finishing their implementation of CSS2, as you would know if you'd been reading this blog and others. As for 2.1, well that's mainly bugfixes for the errors made by the W3C in CSS2.0.

As for CSS3, why on earth should IE's development team speed into implementing a standard that's not even been decided on yet, let alone guaranteed error-free. The problem is that the W3C don't release standards anymore when it comes to CSS. No browser will ever be CSS3-compliant because there really is no such thing as CSS3. There's just tidbits of spec, dribbling out gradually. I hope you don't think that the IE team should wait patiently for these fragments to emerge, hurriedly coding in each new feature at the beck and call of the W3C?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Thank you. Now I have found a reason to install Netscape. I'm still gonna USE Firefox tho.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hey people, don't use IE, don't use Netscape. Just use Firefox. Or write your own browser. I can't understand why people continues to use IE, that is such the worst application I ever tried. Microsoft(TM)(R) continues to give us bad software, and all people in the world seems pleased to use it. I can't understand this.
www.mozilla.org
www.openoffice.org
Start revenging yourself ;-)
- All names and facts in this post are purely casual -
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
> Firstly, IE7's developers have come very close to finishing their implementation of CSS2, as you would know if you'd been reading this blog and others.

I have been reading this blog. The only things that I have seen confirmed wrt. CSS is elimination of the peekaboo and guillotine bugs.

I would LOVE it if you could point me to a statement made by a Microsoft employee that states they have come very close to finishing their implementation of CSS 2.

However I haven't seen anything like that on this blog, and I suspect it's just more untruths from you. Please, prove me wrong. I want to be wrong. Give me a link.

> As for CSS3, why on earth should IE's development team speed into implementing a standard that's not even been decided on yet

This is exactly what I mean when I say you are trolling. I've already pointed out that some CSS 3 specifications are ready to be implemented, and you ignore the facts and continue to spout misinformation.

Here's just one example:

"This specification is being put forth as a W3C Candidate Recommendation by the CSS Working Group"

"All persons are encouraged to review and implement this specification"

"The CSS Working Group believes this document addresses all last call comments, and can be considered stable. It can still be updated by the Working Group, but only to clarify its meaning."

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/

So go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting "the W3C are way too slow for Microsoft", when Microsoft even fails to implement specifications that the W3C published nine years ago. You only make yourself look even more ridiculous.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
From Saint Louis Today: Microsoft Corp. is urging Windows users to uninstall the new Netscape 8 Web browser from their...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
"I've already pointed out that some CSS 3 specifications are ready to be implemented, and you ignore the facts and continue to spout misinformation."

And I've already explained that there is no value in a specification that is disparate and drip-fed into adoption.

CSS2.1 is worthy of adoption because it is a benchmark standard - a reference that all implementors can adopt.

CSS3 is just a hotch-potch bundle of standards that have been endlessly discussed since 1999. It's NOT a coherent, complete specification. My complaint is with browser implementors having to wait years for the various bits of CSS3 to emerge from the W3C. It's a complete farce. Especially when various CSS3 properties are just duplicating behaviour that MS has already made defacto in their own implementation since the late 90's. Think element-level alpha, HTC behaviour, ruby characters, element orientation (eg vertical text) etc.

And Jim, please stop with the troll accusations. You're just making yourself look bad-natured.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
IE suxs taht's all...

The major problem with Netscape, is that Netscape communications can't provide as good support as Mozilla does to Firefox etc.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Just to remember that IE does not follow standards and MS is allways trying to block all software industry growth to mantain leadership. So why you guys claiming about a little bug in Netscape? How about javascript problems and proprietary java initiatives regarding IE browser? I abandoned IE a year ago... And I am VERY happy.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hail to Opera and Firefox!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hail with Opera and FireFox...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Uhhhh....Hmmm? What's that? Netscape something... Ohhh yeah...I remember Netscape...

It does something to IE? Oh. So what's your point?

<<This page viewed with Mozilla 1.75>>
<<there.is.only.xul>>
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I am not about to wade through that mess above so if this is mentioned sorry.

I was having no problem with xml pages, but I was not able to see a lot of ASP pages.

Followed the path to the registry key for the xml, found the xml key - point to something in the Netscape directory - and found an ASPX key - pointing the same place. Removed, and low and behold I can view pages that end in ASP again.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Sidenote: The pathetic responses above are why I will never in my life give Mozilla a chance.

I am smart enough to respect the work that the developers are doing on that browser, but in no way ever want to be associated with the likes of those that commented above.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
"Sidenote: The pathetic responses above are why I will never in my life give Mozilla a chance. I am smart enough to respect the work that the developers are doing on that browser, but in no way ever want to be associated with the likes of those that commented above."

I hear you buddy!

MS may have brought web browsing to the masses, but it looks like Firefox is bring web browsing to the imbecilic hordes.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I want to thank Internet Explorer for allowing spyware and adware to be installed on millions of computers!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris, you still haven't explained why you keep talking as if there aren't finished, ready-to-implement CSS 3 specifications. Or do you concede that they exist now?

And I'd still like to know where you heard that Microsoft have almost finished complete CSS 2 support. Really. If they really said something like that, I would like to know about it.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Jim, as Chris Wilson points out:

"there is no CSS3 standard yet"
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

CSS3 will never be a standard until all the disparate parts, in their various stages of discussion/recommendation are pieced together and full tested in real implementation.

As for support for the current CSS standards:

"The first couple of things they’ve done are .. Address[ed] CSS consistency problems"
"the beta release is almost here"
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04/22/410963.aspx
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
> "there is no CSS3 standard yet"

So you have resorted to ignoring me when I point out that CSS 3 is a group of specifications then?

There is no DHTML standard either. But that doesn't mean that browsers don't support ECMA-262, the DOM and CSS, which are the specifications that comprise "DHTML".

Let's start small. Can you agree that this specification exists?

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/

Can you agree that it says:

"All persons are encouraged to review and implement this specification"

Can you agree that it says:

"The CSS Working Group believes this document addresses all last call comments, and can be considered stable. It can still be updated by the Working Group, but only to clarify its meaning."

If you can agree on all that, then I'll ask my question again:

Chris, you still haven't explained why you keep talking as if there aren't finished, ready-to-implement CSS 3 specifications. Or do you concede that they exist now?

> "The first couple of things they’ve done are .. Address[ed] CSS consistency problems"

In what fantasy land is "addressed CSS consistency problems" evidence of a full CSS 2 implementation? You left out the all-important context; he said that in relation to fixing the Peekaboo and Guillotine bugs, with nary a mention of implementing any more of the CSS 2 specification.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Jim: "So you have resorted to ignoring me when I point out that CSS 3 is a group of specifications then?"

I'm not going to get drawn into your diatribe, Jim. Of course I know that a group of specifications make up CSS3. As I have explained, this is the root of the problem, since they are all at varying stage of design, and there's very little concrete adoption on the Web to show for any of them.

The W3C started CSS3 in 1999. They're still going now, SIX years later. I don't care what parallels you'd like to draw with IE. The W3C are clearly INEFFECTIVE at creating a cohesive CSS3 standard that's ready for adoption by all browsers. No browser can claim "I support CSS3" and this is unlikely to change before the end of the decade.

This is therefore a farce.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
> The W3C are clearly INEFFECTIVE at creating a cohesive CSS3 standard that's ready for adoption by all browsers.

You are still talking as if CSS 3 is one monolithic specification!

Why aren't you complaining that the W3C haven't finished the "Internet" standard? Is it because Internet technologies are best described in a number of different specifications? Then why do you insist on ignoring the fact that CSS 3 is a group of specifications?

The W3C saw a need to specify a colour module for stylesheets. They gathered input. They wrote a specification. They gathered feedback. They made revisions. After a while, they published a finished specification and are asking people to implement it. Some browser developers are already doing so.

Why do you feel the need to drag other presentational concepts into it, and say that because other CSS 3 specifications haven't been finished, that the specifications that are finished don't matter?

It's like saying that it's impossible to read any Stephen King novels because he hasn't finished writing his latest one yet. Nonsense!

Do you have any more places where you think Microsoft have claimed they've almost finished their CSS 2 implementation, or are you conceding that point?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Jim: "Then why do you insist on ignoring the fact that CSS 3 is a group of specifications?"

Sigh.. this is the BASIS of my point, which I have already explained. I'm really, really bored of your inflammatory diatribe now.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I tried uninstalling NS8, still the problem persists. I do not have such a registry entry to remove. What am I supposed to do? I'm stuck with NS8. Right now I ended up using NS8 as my default browser as I'm a web developer and need the xml display to test webservices.
-raj
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris Beach said :
"As I have explained, this is the root of the problem, since they are all at varying stage of design, and there's very little concrete adoption on the Web to show for any of them."
You can't have a concrete adoption :
- 80% of web-developpers don't even know the word "CSS"
- the leading browser (IE) hasn't a complete implementation of CSS 2 yet...

Imagine that IE7 is released, and that it implements some of the CSS3 candidate recommandation... IE is causing a lot of harm in the adoption of CSS3...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Just install Firefox :
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Microsoft has alerted users that Netscape's latest browser appears to break the XML rendering capabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Dave Massy, a senior programme manager for IE, warned users in a blog posting that after installing Netscape 8, IE will...
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
This isn't about XML's. I hope it is alright to post here.

Since I have installed the 8.0.1 Netscape fix, I have been experiencing two problems. One is when I first click on Netscape and the process freezes showing me that 99.9% of my CPU is being used. Using Task Manager, I end the program and click on it again. The second go around everything comes up alright.

The other problem is with the email applet. Right in the middle of writing an email the program will automatically minimize it to the Start Menu time and again.

If some else is experiencing these problems or knows of a fix, I would sure appreciate the help.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
To quote several inane users:

"I think that Netscape is doing us all a favour in disabling xml in IE"
"Hail to Opera and Firefox!"
"I abandoned IE a year ago... And I am VERY happy."
"IE suxs taht's all..."

Why do you guys waste your time writing about your ignorance and loathing of Microsoft / Internet Explorer and love for competing products?

This site is designed to be a constructive environment where the developers make a genuine effort to communicate with the public. Don't waste this opportunity. If you plan to use future versions of IE, then HELP the developers make the product you want.

If you are resigned to using competing products then that's fine - but don't waste this site's resources by spouting your feelings of abandonment, disillusionment or general angst here. It's pathetic, and wastes everyone's time
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris, baby, why are you wasting your time defending technology that is on the way out. Buy a macintosh, perhaps that will make you a happier person, cause you seem wound up a little too tight. Chill out man.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Note to self -- stop feeding the trolls..
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hey guy`s IE6 with SP2 on Windows XP Pro had a problem, but not width NS8. Since friday june/3 my IE6 don't show the web pages with XML and i haven't installed NS8 or other similar program. why ???
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris, Chris, Chris, man, take up yoga, get out more, IE7, IE8, Safari, why get so twisted about it? It's only a browser, if it's got a problem, then the developers will fix it, you can't save the IT world, just let it slide man.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
http://www.stopie.com/stopie/alternatives/
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chloe:

You make me laugh. I haven't even got through a quarter of these posts and I am already in stitches. I have just got to the part where you have stated that you are indeed a web developer. I have been reading your comments and I am amazed that you have stated this. Maybe you can point us to a few of your sites so we can see them?

Personally, I do not believe you are a web developer, or if you are I think you use FrontPage. Personally I think you work for Microsoft or have somekind of affiliation to them. You seem far too pro-Microsoft for my liking, far too willing to dismiss non-MS products for the most stupidest of reasons. Your ability to dismiss standards, especially web standards, is amazing. Your accusations that Opera is bloated is amazing - Opera bloated, IE not, absolutely hilarious. MS should impose their authority should they? Only webmasters want standards do they? (This one made me laugh the most - surely a web DEVELOPER knows the difference between a web developer and a webmaster [or website administrator to give it it's proper name]).

I look forward to the rest of your comments as today I was feeling down but now I am having a right old laugh at your expense. In fact, I have sent the link to these comments to all my friends (mostly non-web developers who understand the need for somekind of web standards).

Standards are needed. I have recently finished one simple page, a form, laid out and formatted using simple CSS. This page works in Netscape, Opera, K-Meleon, Firefox etc, but it does not display properly in IE. Now why is that. I can fix it simply enough, but why should I? It works in all browsers except IE? To me that says IE is broken.

If you are a web developer as you claim to be, I think you should start looking at the web standards and start using them. Learn CSS. In fact, take a project and try to write some simple pages using standard HTML & CSS and then try them in ALL the browsers you can find. Once you have done this try the same pages in IE!

Also, as a side project, try searching the net on the subject of IE & CSS. It makes interesting reading.

To keep on topic, the new netscape uses the IE engine as well as the Gecko engine doesn't it? Maybe this will explain some things!!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chloe, don't make the same mistake as I did - ignore these pathetic trolls, and keep your sound arguments coming. Nice to see that not everyone is an OSS/Mozilla zealot in this forum
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris baby, I thought you were going to keep on-topic? But I can see that you really do need that yoga lesson. Turn of the Microsoft drugs and go outside, I'm sure it's going to be a nice day today.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
"You're an idiot. Your argument loses weight when you focus on personal attacks."

Priceless. :)

Something for the blame-Netscape crowd to explain:

WinXPSP1, install N8, no problem.
Add SP2, no more XML rendering.

Conspiracy? I don't know, but maybe blame should be re-assessed.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Chris Beach said :
"Chloe, don't make the same mistake as I did - ignore these pathetic trolls"

LOL

This one made me laugh for fifteen minutes... Come on... Who's the real pathetic troll here ?

"You see a mote in another's eye but cannot see a beam in your own" ;)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Microsoft goon squad is getting organized, FALL BACK, FALL BACK".
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Nice tip!!fixed my problem with above soln. thx!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Got Netscape 8? Got Internet Explorer 6? Then you've got broken XML in Internet Explorer. Until now. Netscape's issued an updated version that fixes the problem, according to BetaNews. Get Netscape 8.02 here....
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Heh - Looks like a lot of really upset people here. Really upset. Some of the comments are most amusing.

I don't know who's to blame here, MS, Mozilla, or AOL. What I do know is that almost everyone who has posted here looks like a religous zealot.

What it comes down to in simple terms is:

1) IE has problems.

2) Netscape has problems.

And the vast majority of posters here would leave an alien from Mars who read the posts determined not to use either product,
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/3264.html

"...when officials were amending the XML problem, they came across faulty documentation on Internet Explorer, which is the likely reason behind of the problem..."
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
YAWN!
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Netscape 8.0.2 solves this problem. Couldn't tell if it was posted through all the ranting.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
> It's obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox
> UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but
> that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which,
> there will be no compelling reason to use it.

I agree - after Firefox becomes another two orders of magnitude better than IE there really will be no reason at all to use IE.

ML
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
He said the new version will be built on the work they did in SP2, and other things. Gates mentioned they will go further to defend IE users from phishing and other deceptive software.
Anonymous
February 13, 2006
PingBack from http://blog.kotarski.org/2005/05/27/netscape-8-and-internet-explorers-xml-rendering/
Anonymous
April 26, 2006
PingBack from http://www.money501.com/20060427165/dvorak-on-internet-explorer-the-great-microsoft-blunder/
Anonymous
December 27, 2006
PingBack from http://www.livejournal.com/users/jedifreeman/26482.html
Anonymous
December 27, 2006
PingBack from http://www.ljseek.com/web-standards_53743961.html
Anonymous
January 04, 2007
PingBack from http://www.ljseek.com/bad-netscape-bad_55498119.html
Anonymous
May 02, 2007
PingBack from http://www.adrianliem.ca/index.php/2006/06/03/problems-viewing-xml-in-ie/
Anonymous
July 23, 2007
PingBack from http://blogsseek.com/helpdesk-software/2007/07/20/1901-2012/
Anonymous
March 02, 2008
PingBack from http://blog.snap-ustar.net/?p=40
Anonymous
March 27, 2008
PingBack from http://employmentwagesblog.info/ieblog-netscape-8-and-internet-explorers-xml-rendering/
Anonymous
April 07, 2008
PingBack from http://collegesboardblog.info/ieblog-netscape-8-and-internet-explorers-xml-rendering/
Anonymous
May 10, 2008
PingBack from http://ralph.superfreemedia.info/internetexplorerprogram.html
Anonymous
May 19, 2008
PingBack from http://jalynn.clearviewnet.info/internetexplorer8.html
Anonymous
May 21, 2008
PingBack from http://tabitha.freeinfocontent.info/afterdeletingie8icantinstallie7.html
Anonymous
July 07, 2008
PingBack from http://desmond.onlinevidsdigestmagazine.info/iaanyoneunabletoopenhotmailmessagesinnewtabs.html
Anonymous
July 11, 2008
PingBack from http://brandy.onlineshoppingvidsworld.info/enteravalidpostedblogentrysites.html
Anonymous
August 31, 2008
PingBack from http://www.nczonline.net/wpblog/2005/05/25/netscape-8-messes-up-ie/
Anonymous
September 04, 2008
PingBack from http://johnpaulmonje.blog.friendster.com/2005/05/netscape-8-breaks-ie/
Anonymous
January 21, 2009
PingBack from http://www.hilpers.it/1853749-visualizzazione-xml-blank
Anonymous
May 26, 2009
PingBack from http://www.scottasavage.com/2005/05/netscape-8-worst-browser-ever/
Anonymous
May 29, 2009
PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=ieblog-netscape-8-and-internet-explorer-s-xml-rendering
Anonymous
May 31, 2009
PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=4427
Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=14586
Anonymous
June 12, 2009
PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=3209
Anonymous
June 13, 2009
PingBack from http://hairgrowthproducts.info/story.php?id=1539
Anonymous
June 15, 2009
PingBack from http://workfromhomecareer.info/story.php?id=1091
Anonymous
June 16, 2009
PingBack from http://fixmycrediteasily.info/story.php?id=11476
Anonymous
June 16, 2009
PingBack from http://topalternativedating.info/story.php?id=1588

Share via

Netscape 8 and Internet Explorer's XML Rendering

Comments

Additional resources