Browser Wars II
The browser wars of the 1990s may be over but a second, underground, revolution is on its way that may alter the browser market from the inside out. As the importance of web standards and the potential cost of past laxness looms dark on the horizon, a dozing Microsoft may find itself playing catch-up while newcomer Firefox enjoys a welcome boost.
Many of you will remember the 'browser wars' of the mid to late '90s. Back in 1997 Netscape Navigator had more than 70% market share, and Microsoft's Internet Explorer was a minnow with less than 20%. At the time, the differing standards used by the available browsers (affecting CSS support and Javascript implementation, for example) meant making Internet content was a genuine headache. The fact that a given page worked well in one browser was in no way a guarantee that it would work identically in another.
Following the introduction of Internet Explorer 4.0 in 1997, Microsoft's browser began to surge ahead in popularity (not least because it was given away free with Windows 98, although it was also in many ways a far superior product than any of the alternatives) while once top-dog Netscape floundered and eventually fell.
While various anti-trust and regulatory bodies were rightly disturbed by the tactics employed by Microsoft to gain their market dominance, the almost complete market penetration of Internet Explorer made life much easier for the average web developer. If a page worked in Internet Explorer, a satisfactory user experience could be guaranteed for 95% of the page's audience.
While this market dominance was convenient for many, Microsoft's willingness to use its dominance to pressure the competition was the darker flipside of the coin. This came to a head with Microsoft's decision to drop support for Sun Microsystems' Java language. At the time Microsoft's own FrontPage software included Java-based components and Java was, and still is, used by a wide variety of online material. Inevitably this action caused a great deal of indignation in the online community. Many people came to realise that the negative aspects of Microsoft's dominant position greatly outweighed the benefits. At around the same time Microsoft was also becoming increasingly complacent, secure in their position as undisputed king of the browser market, with refinements to their browser becoming ever less frequent, instead focusing on fixes for a seemingly never-ending list of security flaws.
One of the keys to Internet Explorer's success has always been its forgiving nature. Incorrect syntax is usually glossed over, and obvious errors allowed to gracefully degrade without anything more obvious than a small error icon. This benign nature is thanks to the browser's failure to strictly adhere to language protocols such as XHTML, CSS2 and Javascript. This may sound like a good thing, but it isn't.
Pages that are permitted not to follow strict protocols will always have an uncertain future. Will they work in the future with other browsers? What if Microsoft were make their browser's compliance more rigid? Pages would need to be altered in order to function as intended, which would necessitate a large financial outlay for many companies. Not good. More advanced functions, such as those of the CSS2 specification, may also fail to function at all, limiting development possibilities and slowing standards evolution (which naturally go hand-in-hand with the actual use and adoption of these standards). Better to ensure pages meet strict requirements now, ensuring that they will work in the future regardless of browser. However, in order to do this a browser is required that actually follows all the rules.
Enter Mozilla's Firefox. Firefox is a collaborative effort designed to tightly comply with the major web standards, as mandated by the World Wide Web Consortium/W3C (www.w3c.com). Although only in its first full release version (an infant in software terms), Firefox is already recognised as technically superior to Internet Explorer 6.0 (not to mention significantly faster), and is essential equipment for any web developer, whether working primarily for Internet Explorer users or not. Because of Firefox's rendering (and usability; one word: 'tabs') superiority, it has become the browser of choice among developers and is quickly gaining market share. Over 50 million downloads of the Firefox 1.0 browser were recorded in the six months following its introduction in November 2004, backed by a swelling underground support movement.
Since Firefox's introduction, Internet Explorer's market share has dropped to below 87%, while Firefox commands nearly 9% and continues to grow at an impressive rate. At first glance this may not seem very impressive, but these numbers have certainly attracted Microsoft's attention. Microsoft had originally intended to wait until the introduction of their next-generation 'Longhorn' operating system (ETA, 2006-ish) before releasing a newer version of Internet Explorer, but have changed their tune, stating that Internet Explorer 7.0 will be released sometime in the fourth quarter of 2005. It is rumoured to have enhanced functionality, including tabbing, and greater (although not complete) adherence to the major web standards. Unsurprisingly, it will also tightly integrate with Microsoft's upcoming spyware software and many of the security enhancement introduced with XP SP2. We may well be on the verge of 'browser wars II'.
Regardless of the outcome of this pending face-off, the growing acceptance of web standards among the online community makes development of rigid pages not only desirable but essential. Failure to do so will cost you and your company money when you find yourself forced to recreate pages that have already been made once before. The relaxed approach to standards is fast becoming as obsolete as the horse and buggy.
Posted by at May 2, 2005 03:57 PM
