I would tend to agree but if there is no major reason why the compliance with the MS standard shouldn't be implemented then spitting into the wind is only going to get us a wet face :-)
Unfortunately we *are* fighting a monopoly which means many of the "standards" are going to be defined by that monopoly whether we like it or not. The best way of doing something has _never_ been a reason for the general acceptance of a standard especially in computer technology but elsewhere also. (remember Betamax?) The _only_ thing that defines a generally used standard is... general use Carl Cerecke wrote: > > Yuri DeGroot wrote: > > > Being a person I'm kinda biased and I reckon the tool should be the > > one to change :-) > > Being a person who writes software, I'm kinda biased and I reckon the > tool should implement the standard and the person should stick to the > standard. > > Standards should be well defined and easy for the user and implementor. > > In other words, if your 'standard' is "What works in IE" then that's > bad. > > Cheers, > -- > Carl Cerecke, Assistant Lecturer|email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Department of Computer Science, |Phone: +64 3 364 2987 ext. 7859 > University of Canterbury, |Fax: +64 3 364 2569 > Private Bag 4800, |http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~cdc > Christchurch, New Zealand. | -- Zane Gilmore, Analyst / Programmer Information Services Section, Information Technology Dept, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Christchurch New Zealand phone +64-3-364 2987 extn 7895 Fax 3642222
