Since when have W3 standards changed either often or fast? HTML 4.0 has
been an unchanging standard for four years now. CSS Level 1 has been an
unchanging standard for FIVE years. Your argument is invalid.
You also seem to be under the impression the W3 is some obscure group of
malcontents off making up spurious standards on their own whim. You
couldn't be more wrong. The W3 is a place where the major players in web
technology have agreed to come together to create interoperable
standards...INCLUDING MICROSOFT. That Microsoft chooses then to sabotage
the efforts by deliberately including "bugs" in their software that
other developers can't possible anticipate is yet another reason
Redmond, Washington should be nuked.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Plessky) wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2001 01:12, Magnus W wrote:
> |
> | > Why do you think people should rush to remake products when, by
> | > occasion, somebody releases new *standard*?
> |
> | Aaah! But that's the point with w3c -- that our products shouldn't HAVE
> | to be remade every year. Just follow the standards. New browsers will
> | follow the standards. We are happy! Customers are happy! Customers'
> | customers are happy! Managers are happy! We are all one big, happy,
> | standards- compliant family!
>
> Magnus, it's very good point.
> W3C standards change *too often* and *too fast*
>
> Amy be, in the future, we should require from W3C before submitting new
> features provide "free reference implementation*
> It will solve a lot if issues, IMO.
> MS wants new feature in W3C standard? Ok, no problem. Provide free reference
> implementation, that's it. (if they don't like GPL, they can offer BSD
> license on that code)
>
> |
> | > W3C is doing very good job, but it will influence web 3-5 years later.
> | > look, CSS1 is already 5 years old, but still none browser is compliant
> | > to it.
> |
> | That's too bad. However, that's no reason for writing code that only
> | works in one specific browser.
> |
> | > To get CSS3 and DOM3 to masses, you need another 5-7 years :-((
> |
> | I seriously don't think so. Standards are becoming more important to
> | people.
>
> Let's see how WinXP and MS IE6 launch will go.
> I think MS will have a lot of troubles promoting WinXP.
> AFAIK IE6 will *not* include Java, but I have no clue if C# bytecode
> interpreter is (or will be) inside MS IE6.
> A lot of people (mostly corporations) get used to Java inside browser as
> "something given". It can change soon. So, people will either
> a) move to open, standard-compliant solutions (like ECMAscript, CSS, DOM
> models)
> b) to some completely propierty (read: MS-specific, or Sun-specific, etc.)
> stuff.
> I guess already in Jan.2002 we will what's going ;-)
