[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I didn't say that. Their support gets
it adopted by more companies. That makes
it a standard in the sense of the word that
makes it useful: running code. IOW,
a successful standard. You are confusing
specifications (what the W3C produces) with
standards. The W3C is not an international standards
organization. It is a commercial consortium. It
sanctions specifications for its dues paying members.
Some people think Java is a standard and they
are quite comfortable citing all the newest
dinkum on this list. Yet Java is a Sun product.
If I were to take Daniel seriously, I'd have
to think that only open source products can
be discussed here. That would make this a list
of a business minority instead of XML developers.
She has a point. MS did markup a big service.
That is undeniable. She is excited and trying
to make a contribution. Some of you on the other
hand are proving the point about this being a
list of mean, frustrated geeks.
Geeks: guys who couldn't get laid in high school
and discovered that the web was a place to act like
they did.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert P. J. Day [mailto:rpjday@mindspring.com]
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Actually she has a point.
um ... not really.
> There are many business evaluations of so-called
> standards that get resolved by saying "Well, Microsoft
> has implemented it."
microsoft software is not a standard, simply because it
can *never* be a standard, barring some sort of official
international standard organization making it so.
the fact that my wall outlet provides 110V at 60Hz.
that's a standard. that my bicycle wheels are 700mm.
*that's* a standard. paper (at least here in north
america) typically coming in 8.5" x 11" or 8.5" x 14".
*that's* a standard. get the idea?
MS software may be popular. it may be ubiquitous.
and many corporations have clearly adopted it as their
SW of choice. that does *not* make it a standard.
|
