ssfreitas, one of the problems with implementing standards and ONLY standards is that the standardization process is slow and time consuming. Just because there was a standard (DTD) for xml schemas, didn't mean that DTD was the end all be all for schema definitions. It didn't allow for some of the most basic of things you'd expect in a schema - namely types.
How does this apply to HTML? Well there is a lot more to HTML then just static rendering. Another major component is the HTML object model (DOM). Since Netscape and Microsoft both had scripting in the browser before an HTML scripting language had been standardized, they had both extended the existing standards and made themselves proprietary. Why did they do it? Because that's what their customers wanted.
I've been a web developer for several years now, and I can say that if I only had to code IE-only sites, I'd be a happy man. One can argue that it is evil for Microsoft to have proprietary extension which they support, but I say that their extensions are great! Microsoft is quite often produces API's that are easy for developers to work with, so developers often quite enjoy working with Microsoft API's. If Microsoft gives me an extension API to make my life easier, I'll use it if I can. I'd rather give my viewers the best experience possible (via IE), then write a dumbed down site, just so it can be cross browser and cross platform.
|