I tell people that the history of Mozilla and Firefox is so one of a kind that it should not be used - ever - as an example of what's possible.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think HTML5 is one area where Mozilla has done very poorly at actually communicating what we have done.
The Mozilla project is big in terms of lines of code and complexity.
Many thought it was a fool's errand - that the browser companies were never going to listen to us. Others argued that, 'Users don't care if you use Web standards.' Well, of course they don't. They just know that your site works better.
For most of the '90s and the first part of this decade, content providers who wanted to publish online only needed to worry about the graphical web browser.
In '93 to '94, every browser had its own flavor of HTML. So it was very difficult to know what you could put in a Web page and reliably have most of your readership see it.
People in the industry foresee a time in which, for many people, the only thing they'll need on a computer is a browser.
If I was designing a web site for elementary school children, I might have a much higher percentage of older computers with outdated browsers since keeping up with browser and hardware technology has not traditionally been a strong point of most elementary schools.
I got bitten by the free software bug in February of 1998 around the time of the Mozilla announcement.
I thought Microsoft did a lot of things that were good and right building parts of the browser into the operating system. Then I thought it out and came up with reasons why it was a monopoly.
What we now call the browser is whatever defines the web. What fits in the browser is the World Wide Web and a number of trivial standards to handle that so that the content comes.
No opposing quotes found.