<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Netscape Returns!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2004/08/17/netscape-returns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2004/08/17/netscape-returns/</link>
	<description>Sci-fi, comics, humor, photos...it&#039;s all fair game.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:03:41 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kelson</title>
		<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2004/08/17/netscape-returns/#comment-463</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2004 04:53:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2004/08/17/netscape-returns/#comment-463</guid>
		<description>No, I hadn&#039;t seen it -- which is kind of strange, because I&#039;ve been following the &lt;a href=&quot;http://webstandards.org/&quot;&gt;Web Standards Project weblog&lt;/a&gt; for several months, and they haven&#039;t mentioned it.  Actually, Google doesn&#039;t seem to have indexed any links to it yet, so it must be fairly new. (And be careful about searching for the phrase &quot;browse happy.&quot;)

As for them leaving out Netscape, I can think of two reasons.  The first is that when Mozilla split off last year, there was a real sense of torch-passing.  7.1 seemed like a last-ditch effort to get something out before they were shut down (with the rare distinction of being a &lt;em&gt;high quality&lt;/em&gt; last-ditch effort), and it was clear that all the action would be with Mozilla.  The second is complexity.  At this point they&#039;re plugging four browsers, two of which are based on the same core. Adding Netscape gives you five products, three using the same core, two of them almost identical.  It might be worth adding Netscape info to the Mozilla entry, but limiting the list to four keeps the message simpler -- and a simpler message is more likely to get through.

Make that three reasons. AOL had said at one point that there would be no more Netscape releases (before they changed their minds). At least with Mozilla, Firefox, Safari and Opera you &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; someone&#039;s around to fix any security holes that crop up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I hadn&#8217;t seen it &#8212; which is kind of strange, because I&#8217;ve been following the <a href="http://webstandards.org/">Web Standards Project weblog</a> for several months, and they haven&#8217;t mentioned it.  Actually, Google doesn&#8217;t seem to have indexed any links to it yet, so it must be fairly new. (And be careful about searching for the phrase &#8220;browse happy.&#8221;)</p>
<p>As for them leaving out Netscape, I can think of two reasons.  The first is that when Mozilla split off last year, there was a real sense of torch-passing.  7.1 seemed like a last-ditch effort to get something out before they were shut down (with the rare distinction of being a <em>high quality</em> last-ditch effort), and it was clear that all the action would be with Mozilla.  The second is complexity.  At this point they&#8217;re plugging four browsers, two of which are based on the same core. Adding Netscape gives you five products, three using the same core, two of them almost identical.  It might be worth adding Netscape info to the Mozilla entry, but limiting the list to four keeps the message simpler &#8212; and a simpler message is more likely to get through.</p>
<p>Make that three reasons. AOL had said at one point that there would be no more Netscape releases (before they changed their minds). At least with Mozilla, Firefox, Safari and Opera you <em>know</em> someone&#8217;s around to fix any security holes that crop up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2004/08/17/netscape-returns/#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2004/08/17/netscape-returns/#comment-460</guid>
		<description>Have you seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://browsehappy.com/&quot; title=&quot;Browse Happy&quot;&gt;Browse Happy&lt;/a&gt;? They mention Mozilla, Firefox, etc., but not the new Netscape (or even older like 7.1). I wonder if that was an intentional oversight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you seen <a href="http://browsehappy.com/" title="Browse Happy">Browse Happy</a>? They mention Mozilla, Firefox, etc., but not the new Netscape (or even older like 7.1). I wonder if that was an intentional oversight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
