Matthew Thomas wrote:
> Chuck Messenger wrote:
>> 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.)
Oh, _please_ don't use the word "gr*at" in your own sentences -- I can't
bear it!
The point is that MS doesn't _want_ to supply open solutions. But if
their customers force the issue (which happens frequently with Internet
tecnologies, but not with the desktop), then it happens, grudgingly.
Until they concoct the next lock-in attempt.
>> 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.)
For the Internet: Active-X and JNI are two which come to mind. And
msn.com actively rejecting non-MS browsers (what else is the point of
that, but lock-in? Is that a "gr*at solution" demanded by their customers?)
- Chuck
