Lists Home |
Date Index |
No, it represents interests just as any other does. MS is a
multitude of internal groups, each vying for a place on that
desktop. I am as aware of the standards that have been created
in this field as any person on this list. I've seen good and
bad, timely and untimely, risky and safe. Microsoft is quite
sincere about their technology. They are sincere enough to
produce the best innovations they can, to cherry pick and
to provide their customers what is needed: value.
MS has yet to say, but I suspect they will take XAML, fully
proven as they did with C# to a standards organization. We
can influence that decision and the choices made in those
organizations. Or not.
I am a believer in democracy and openness. I am also aware
that I do not live in a democracy, but in a republic. I
am a student of history and know that democracies are unstable
forms of governing in some historical settings and that
despots, particularly the form inherited from the eastern
countries by the Roman empire, thrived. I know that the fall
of that empire was not due to its form of governing but that
the rulers did not see the danger of having large city
populations that took product from the countryside without
themselves being productive and that the instrument of their
domination, the Roman legions, became less and less Roman
and more dominated by the local populations whose allegiance
to Rome was indefinite and weak and that the cost of
maintaining these while simultaneously maintaining very
large unproductive city populations eventually sapped
the strength of the empire by depleting its resources
without refurbishing them. I understand that those
societies that choose openness have always had to face
up to the challenge of closed societies that could
cherry pick their work. I also know that there are
no designs presented from the groups making so much
noise at the moment that are truly original, so it
comes down to fielding and implementation. Those are
the market forces. If you think history teaches or
informs, study it well. It predicts XAML will succeed
not because of conspiratorial forces, but because it is the
surface language for a complete integrated architecture
even if it is not itself terribly novel.
We can make intelligent choices. One of them could be
to pursue a standard for rich client applications in a
legitimate international standards organization instead
of a self-serving consortium. The standard exists. ISO ISMID.
But it is friendless.
Perhaps you might want to look at it and ask yourself why,
then review your history and philosophy. It isn't as clear
as one might propose. Perhaps the trouble at our door is
not of Microsoft's making, but our own lack of clarity and
From: Bedros Hanounik [mailto:Bedros.Hanounik@tarari.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:55 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Michael Champion; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Inside Redhell: Microsoft XAML Blogger Round-Up
Actually, it's OK for a group to ignore standards, because it represents
many companies. It's NOT OK for Microsoft to ignore standards, because
it's a single entity.
It's amazing how people with such intelligence don't figure it out!
Go and read history books. Dictatorship and fascism is bad. Democracy,
fair and open competetion is good.
It doesn't matter how great and innovative XAML is; It's useless if it
doesn't incorporate feedback from major players in this field, and gives
the control over it's future to the industry.
Intel introduced PCI bus in early 90's and instead of imposing it on the
industry, they created PCI group and that group set the PCI standards.
Nowadays, everyone is using PCI bus even non-intel platforms.
If Microsoft is really sincere about their technology, they would follow
the same path; but they won't.
disclaimer: my personal opinions, don't necessarily represent my
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:10 AM
To: 'Michael Champion'; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Inside Redhell: Microsoft XAML Blogger Round-Up
Why should it be ok for groups to ignore
standards but not ok for Microsoft to ignore them?
Maybe we made the rules that Microsoft plays by.
Maybe throttling the ISO efforts in favor of the
W3C and killing off good designs in favor of bad
ones has finally come home to roost in our own
backyards. Maybe. We can't say otherwise, so it
will just be more name calling, more aggressive
kicking of your competition, and a world that
cares less and less about the quality of products
and more about where they are manufactured and
who gets the money. China is going off on its
own. Do we plan to take them on over it?
We live in the hot ecotone between competition
and cooperation, innovation and standardization.
It takes intelligence to navigate among those
worlds and foresight and timing. Chrome was
already out there before XUL and XForms. The
Longhorn architecture did not spring up overnight.
MS may stick to their own knitting but they do
have a way of showing up with the complete article
ready to become productive with. Did you ever
stop to think the market may not really want a
patchwork of languages? We will find out in the
next three years.
Maybe it is time to be done with conspiracy theories.
We can work with MS or against them, but the winners
or losers will be our customers if we bet wrong.
No Plan = No Product = No Buyer = No Sale = No Pay.
From: Michael Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Inside Redhell: Microsoft XAML Blogger Round-Up
On Nov 12, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 3. Standards are still valuable but we have to
> learn to listen and time their emergence. Rich
> client experimentation has gone on since at least
> the early nineties using the same family of design
> approach as has been later used in XUL and XAML.
> XUL and XAML validate that early work and among
> all of these, are confirmation of TimBL's principle
> of independent invention for it. That means it is time
> to begin or renew serious and legitimate standards
> work but with the understanding that the software
> companies will not slow down their development
I agree with the sentiment, but don't think it applies here. We *know*
that HTML is very limited for UI purposes, and that there is a lot of
innovation going on to fill in the gaps. That is the premise behind
XForms, XHTML 2.x, SVG (to some extent), and CSS. What strikes me is
how little Microsoft has supported these efforts in their products. An
IE 7 with XForms, SVG, and CSS compliance would alleviate a lot of
these problems, and serious MS participation in XHTML to focus that
effort on what they see as real customer needs would help too. But
there are no signs of that happening, so the protestations about how
limited the standard stuff is seem hollow.
Maybe this is all about geeks running wild and doing Cool Stuff
without regard to the network effect that drives the Internet, figuring
that the rest of the world can catch up at its own pace. The
alternative hypothesis that it is about market strategists running wild
and figuring that it's time to move to step 3 in "embrace, extend,
extinguish" can't be dismissed, however. What's more, I see virtually
no effort to offer evidence and arguments to alleviate such concerns.
> This is BrowserWarsRedux unless we
> are wise and patient and determined to do the
> right thing.
Uh, no, the browser wars are over. Microsoft won. This is the
Occupation Force specifying that the roads and bridges must be rebuilt
in a manner that accommodates their heavy equipment. <duck>
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription