TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
David Botton <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:56:07 -0700
MIME-Version:
1.0
X-To:
Reply-To:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
--- Philip Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The phrase "supporting NT, 95, or 98" does not and
> should not
> mean IE only.

You don't get it do you. IE is not an App any more, it
is an OS Service. It is tied in to the guts of NT and
9X. Yes, Supporting NT and 9X does mean today
supporting access to the the HTMLDoc/WebBrowser COM
objects along with the various DHTML, XML, and new
Win32 APIs embedded in the OS that are all part of IE.
Today, IE is nothing but a simple shell to these
services.

I am not fighting any one on this. I am informing.

If you want to know more about MS's ___OS___ direction
(which includes IE like it or not), I would be happy
to refer you to the many places in the MS PDK (AKA
Win32 SDK), MS Books, and other MS documents in
private e-mails as this thread has gone off the Ada
path.

If I agree or disagree with MS is another issue (I
general do not and am on the same side as you) and
like every one elses opinion about their direction, I
don't think they realy care.

David Botton
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2