I've found using such browser-specific extensions useful only for Intranet
applications where you can dictate what browser should be used.
If an extension does not work in IE and you have IE users, you'll just have
to provide another way to do it for users of IE.
See: "Internet Explorer Wins the Battle" (Sept. 1, 2004)
At 09:54 AM 9/3/2004, you wrote:
>I've been a Mozilla and more recently Firefox user for a long time, but
>only recently noticed the availability of extensions. (I know :") ) I'm
>really excited by the extensibility, but cautious about the tie-in to a
>single browser development environment. I know Microsoft ignores this
>all the time, and unfortunately I'm finding more and more sites that
>seem to *require* IE to use. My question is, even though the underlying
>XML is "open" and "standard", doesn't the use of XUL lead to the same
>sort of "lock out" for users of typical "public" services, such as
>libraries who frequently have no choice (or even knowledge) of which
>browser to use?
>Is there anything that can be done, or has been done, to take these
>great extensions, and the tools to create them and make them coexist
>with or "embrace and extend" the IE universe?
Library Information Systems Specialist
Hamilton College Library
[log in to unmask]