Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Len Bullard <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Rose <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:51:04 -0600
Michael Rose wrote:
> If the answer the answer to that question is yes (which apparently it
> is), and if that difference is important (which it seems to be to a
> significant number of developers here) then shouldn't future W3C
> standards address this problem? Otherwise, why should we even bother
> with the standards?
> If browsers are really a commodity then, as others have said, the
> innovations should go through the W3C. Then browsers X and Y can
> compete on other features, reliability being an excellent example.
That brings us back to the original thread: alternatives to the
W3C. The W3C does not insist on reliability in implementation.
Here is a different tact: consider that the W3C specs are
imcomplete with regards to implementation. Reliability is testable
for implemented components. A spec may provide conformance criteria
for conformance testing. This is how MPEG approaches the problem
using patented technologies. The patents are an emotional issue
for some and in my opinion, the content must not be tied to a
patented implementation. Yet, a patented implementation such as
MPEG may provide licensed components with provable performance
and conformance numbers that can deliver that content reliably.
Those who have said they insist on IE5 do so because they are insisting
on reliability in the implementation of features to support the
content. They do not choose to get reliability for universal
access through lowest common denominator design.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to firstname.lastname@example.org the message
unsubscribe xml-dev (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.