[Snicker] I would certainly think so. The general topic of your post
wasn't really all that inappropriate -- it just had significant potential
to catch fire.
I thought this was important enough to get an opinion from someone who
really *can* speak on behalf of Spyglass:
-- cut here --
Spyglass has been looking at the WWW as an open-systems, standards-based,
group effort from the start. We have seen the *perceived* split between
"CERN-ites" and "Mosaic-ites" (to use Brandon's terms), but the future is
shaped far more by what these two groups agree on than their differences.
We recognize that the two umbrella terms are "WWW" and "Mosaic". Our
product has the name Mosaic, licensed from NCSA. Our product is a WWW
browser. We use both, but the press tends to pick one term or the other.
That ends up being their choice.
Spyglass is participating in the following standards efforts:
- HTML 2.0 and follow-ons, including the proposed IETF working group to
formalize it. (NCSA, too) We will meet the HTML 2.0 spec upon its release.
- W3O, at least as soon as we find out what it is. The initial signs from
Tim Berners-Lee and MIT are promising. Our goal is to see the reference
code standard gel and get redistributed on a regular, predictable plan. We
also want to contribute code to the reference standard, subject to
- We use CERN-libwww-derived code for our development.
- WWW and WWW/Mosiac conferences, whatever they are called.
In addition, we would like to be part of standards efforts which address
security, transaction mechanisms, and billing. So far, we have collected
information on Secure-HTTP, Shen, and others.
Working closely with NCSA has not precluded any of these efforts, in fact
it has helped. Spyglass needs both Mosaic and the standarization of the
WWW protocols to be successful.
-- Tim Krauskopf, Spyglass, Inc.
Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer -- firstname.lastname@example.org 217-355-6000 ext 237
All opinions expressed are mine, and may not be those of my employer.
Hakuna Patata (no french fries)