Re: A proposal for addition to HTML 3.0: Frames

Joe English said:

> P.S. I don't think that this:
>
> > Makes you wonder what they're thinking down in Mtn. View:
> > 1. Alleged adherence to standards process is only for marketing purposes.
> > 2. Send marketing guy to standards process with oblique reference to 
> > published fait accompli.
>
> is an accurate (or appropriate) assessment of the situation.
> Netscape is doing *exactly* the right thing here: they've 
> published a draft specification for review before releasing
> anything to the public at large, and (will have) provided a 
> sample implementation for evaluation.

The current issue of MacWeek reports that Netscape 2.0, due
out by fourth quarter, will offer frame capabilities.  In
order for that to happen, their engineers must be already
working on frames at full steam.  Netscape is clearly
committed to providing this feature in their production
software, *regardless* of the reactions of the working
group.  That is not the action of a developer who is
sincerely committed to the standards process.  If they were
to limit this functionality to experimental releases, and/or
discuss the implementation details thoroughly before
producing software, I would agree with you, but they have
done neither.  In this light, I find it very difficult to
look on Netscape's "proposal" to the working group as
anything but display-room lip service to the concept of a
standards process, and I think Marc Salomon's analysis is
right on the money.

I agree that Netscape's designers are justified in being
frustrated with the standards process, but in context with
their actions in the past, it is *incredibly* hard for me to
believe that this frustration is anything but an excuse for
them to continue with business as usual.

At this point I cannot regard Netscape's claim of their
commitment to "free and open standards" as a simple
exaggeration.  I think it is more fair to say that it is an
outright lie.  Who's coordinating the open letter about
Netscape "standards" again?