[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> writes:
> At 01:04 PM 5/28/2003 -0700, K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> >Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> writes:
> >
> > > Also, for many web technologies,
> > > interoperabilityX matters from the beginning. Perhaps the W3C could
> > > have waited 5 years to standardize HTML, adopting whatever form of
> > > HTML succeeded in the free market, but that might have made it
> > > extremely difficult for smaller vendors and would have resulted in
> > > huge incompatibilities among browsers.
> >
> >You must be joking. Are you saying that adherence to W3C HTML Recs is
> >what would have saved the smaller vendors from the larger one?
>
> It's only one piece of the puzzle, but it is an important piece. At
> least, it has been for the four XML or SGML technology companies I
> have worked for, which were all smaller vendors that felt my
> involvement in standards was strategically important to them.
There is a difference between "involvement in standards" and
"interoperability", isn't there. I thought you meant that what made
Microsoft win the HTML browser wars was that they embraced
interoperability while their competition didn't, and that the HTML
spec, observed as it was by all involved, made interoperability
possible.
Ari.
|
