[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Ture,
but remember, Netscape and the earlier Mosaic started the
freebie train over the Internet. MS didn't innovate that
strategy.
Prior
to the GenCode Revolution, several systems already handled
SGML
for hypertext. This isn't an innovation precisely. I believe
that
HTML actively harmed hypertext innovation while making
it
possible for the ebays and amazons of the world to amass
their
millions/billions/whatever, and it is that mass that is as
much a
problem as MS. MS gives it away, as did the earlier
entries, and that made it possible for that mass to accrue.
I have
no angst for it, or sympathy. Just like everyone else
in
this business, when time comes to change languages,
libraries or platforms, change or float on the water belly
up and
stinky.
Lots
of things have to happen for markets to occur. A loss
leader
is "freebies for favors". I don't protest that. I worked
hard
and took risks to see to it that copies of IADS were
made
available "for free". We got pummeled by the web
community for not making source code free. I learned the
hard
way that this sort of move would be and always will
be
treated politically. So, when someone tosses the
term
"standard" around, and uses that to justify stifling
product innovation, I've learned to ignore it and ask instead
if the
innovation makes the work of the customer easier,
more
productive, and so on. It is too easy, particularly these
days,
for a small group even one unrepresentative of an
industry to claim to be "standardizing" in that industry and
to
create an illusion of "right" that actively harms that industry,
its
products and its customers.
We
knew HTML would create a mess. We worked hard on
XML as
part of the cleanup. SVG, X3D, XSLT and so forth
are
the results of that clean up, not because the organization
responsible for HTML wanted it, but in spite of them. That they
now
consider it their great success is laughable, and the fact
that
polls reveal people bought their story, pathetic and tragic.
But
life goes on. Regardless of the ludditism of the standards
wonks
who believe that entitles them to tell a company they
have
"no option", options will be made and will be marketed.
This
serves the customer and ultimately, the industries and
the
science.
Let'em
wail. The shoe is on the other foot now. It's tomb raidin'
time.
len
In a
message dated 16/10/2002 23:59:05 GMT Daylight Time, clbullar@ingr.com
writes:
Starting development from the assumption
that one develops
for the web by developing
for the HTML browser could easily become an
obsolete assumption. No, the browser is
still there, but not
for everything. It
becomes training wheels for
scriptkiddies.
Len,
I would certainly hope that
intelligent people at Microsoft and elsewhere have already turned their mind
to the *how* of moving beyond present generation (primarily HTML)
browsers.
Ironically, by making HTML browsers free Microsoft killed
browser innovation for a significant period. In fact, with Microsoft's revenue
situation it may already be stifling innovation at MS too.
I guess that
XHTML 2.0 is one migration strategy, albeit one which may or may not
succeed.
The installed base of HTML code/markup is, potentially, a huge
lead weight in this area. Surely we need an approach that will handle both
"old generation" and "new generation" (multi-namespace XML??) Web pages
(or equivalent).
The lead weight of existing HTML pages provides an
inertia to innovation that wasn't present, say, 10 years ago.
Andrew
Watt
| 