And it came to pass that Matthew Thomas wrote:
> Chuck Messenger wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> > DeMoN LaG wrote: ...
>> > > A. Microsoft is committed to implementing the Internet
>> > > standards that make sense to allow our customers to
>> > > build great solutions. As standards emerge, we evaluate
>> > > them to see which standards might best serve our
>> > > customers' needs. ...
>> > The alternative would be wasting time implementing stuff
>> > that their customers *don't* want. In this case (though
>> > not in all cases) that wouldn't make them any money, so
>> > there wouldn't be any point.
>>
>> I think it's more like, they want to lock in their users
>> with proprietary formats.
>
> It would make financial sense for them to do this, and I'm
> expecting it to happen eventually, but I haven't seen any
> evidence of it yet.
>
> `Proprietary formats' aren't inherently evil. Where
> Microsoft's customers are asking for something that's not
> currently covered by a standard, they have no choice *but*
> to implement it in a proprietary way rather than twiddling
> their thumbs waiting for the relevant W3C working group to
> come up with something. Examples include IFRAME (MSIE 3.0),
> behaviors (4.0), and overflow ellipses (6.0), all of which
> are undoubtedly useful.
Which customers requested these features?
Survey says: none.
MicroSoft didn't add those items because customers specifically
asked for them; they added the features and customers integrated
them into their web pages because they were *available*. Had MS
pointed out that these features were not supported by other
software, we might not see them in use today.
But as usual, MS added features and convinced users to become
reliant on them rather than deal with the issues that users
actually aak for. After all, how long did it take to release a
secure and stable OS that didn't require massive patches within
a few weeks of release.
Oh, wait - they still haven't managed that one...
However, in each case, they've
> submitted the new feature to the W3C for inclusion in the
> next version of the relevant standard. That only causes
> lock-in for as long as it takes competing browsers to get
> around to implementing it.
Always after the fact. And again, the only reason there would
be a need is because IE all ready has it, not because people are
clamoring for it.
>
> Netscape did the same thing in the 1.0 to 4.0 era, with
> FONT, BLINK, FRAMESET, MULTICOL, and so on. Perhaps the only
> reason they haven't done it since 4.0 is that they've been
> too busy playing catch-up -- first trying to implement new
> features in a rendering engine that allegedly wasn't capable
> of it, and then writing a new rendering engine from scratch.
And because they lost market share becaue web designers hated
designing TWO versions of a page. (Sound familiar?) With
strict standards compliant, designers will only have to design a
page ONCE, not once for this browser, and again for that
browsers, and again for those using neither browser A or B.
>
>> Supporting open standards works
>> against that
>> goal. If there's such a groundswell that they're _forced_
>> to, only then will they support open standards.
>
> Um, duh, that's what `implementing the Internet standards
> that make sense to allow our customers to build great
> solutions' *means*. If their customers start a groundswell,
> saying `hey, we want full CSS2 support to build great
> solutions', Microsoft will implement it. Supply and demand,
> y'know. There is no financial benefit for them to implement
> something if nobody wants it. (Note that `somebody' might be
> another group within Microsoft.)
>
>> Even then, they'll
>> try to
>> corrupt the open standards, with proprietary extensions.
>>...
>
> Do you have any examples, or are you just trolling?
> (Kerberos doesn't count; this is the Web we're talking
> about.)
Take a look at some of the crap FrontPage produces - lots of
incomplete or non-standard code. And IE displays it all.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Make a fortune: open "Rent-A-Heart."
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
