Hi, David- Brilliantly, hilariously written. You should repost this in a blog for wider exposure and posterity.
Regards- -Doug ddailey wrote (on 10/10/08 9:54 PM): > I noticed tonight that the number of hits returned by Google to a > search of "Silverlight" now slightly exceeds the number for "SVG" > (16.3 million to 16.0 million in my search from the Eastern US using > IE for Windows)[1]. > > So I followed up with a bit of reading on Silverlight in > Wikipedia[2]. In Wikipedia's collective evolution toward making > arguments "balanced," I noticed a) that the first reference to SVG in > that article appears, to my thinking, just a little bit late for > something which is, in fact, so directly derived from an open > standard [3] and b) that when SVG is finally mentioned (rather near > the end of the article), one person is cited as denouncing > Microsoft's "ignoring of open standards" Another person is cited with > a rather interesting contrasting argument I had never heard before. > To paraphrase comments attributed to David Betz a .Net specialist, > "Microsoft would have altered the SVG specification to integrate it > with .NET, rather than the reverse. Consequently, he thinks the > 'choice by Microsoft to use XAML over SVG, served to retain the SVG > standard by not adding proprietary technology [to SVG]'. " Hmmm... I > thought; perhaps Microsoft has been supporting standards after all. > They have chosen not to adopt them and thence spared us from > inevitably ruining them. What a curious perspective. I am still > trying to reason it all out. > > The entire neural activity these strange thoughts engendered was just > enough to make me want to read a little further. Mr. Betz's 2007 > "article" [4][5] begins with a most interesting claim: "Recently > there have been comments floating around the internet and around > conferences that Microsoft's Silverlight needlessly uses XAML as its > mark up language where it should have used SVG (Scalable Vector > Graphics). The argument here is based on the idea that since SVG is a > vector technology accepted in all web browsers except IE, Microsoft > should have used it instead of XAML and then simply added support for > SVG to IE. While this seams to some to be a valid criticism and a > good point to some of the web standards world, it is absolutely > groundless and carries no weight." > > Aha! There you have it web standards world! While your criticism may > appear valid, "it is absolutely groundless and carries no weight." > "it is absolutely groundless and carries no weight." "it is > absolutely groundless and carries no weight." Such amazing language! > Such certainty! Such absolute candor and fearlessness! A more careful > scholar might tend to qualify one's writing with the occasional > "maybe", "might", "perhaps" or even "possibly." And it this person > who has written the final word on Silverlight v standards in a > Wikipedia article that has been nominated as "good"?[6] Oh my! poor > Wikipedia! We had such hopes for the public encyclopedia. It will now > have to abandon its good work with SVG and use Silverlight and go > bankrupt and then only good things can be said about Silverlight. But > how else could any argument against such certainty ever be expected > to end? Certainty MUST always have the last word in an argument with > uncertainty. (or must it? I confess I don't really know). > > We may clearly deduce from this final sentence, without the slightest > bit of extrapolation, I think, that some in the web standards world > must also, therefore, carry no weight. Clearly, if such people > espouse such groundless notions they must be weightless! It is a > rare idea that is labeled "heavy" in these days of lackadaisical > profundity and six-pack wisdom, so is it not to be expected that a > certain amount of weightlessness might infect our conversations, > allowing us to float a bit from the well-grounded, established truths > of positivism and certainty?[7] > > I was wondering if any of us fluent in Wikification might be tempted > to write a brief rebuttal of this apparent absurdity, simply to help > the public encyclopedia regain a bit of credibility on the topic. If > nothing else, I suppose, someone should add a little note to the > Wikipedia article that mentions that someone in the web standards > world who does seem to carry some weight [8], has in fact made public > statements contrary to Mr. Betz's conclusion. > > It was just all so bizarre, I had to share. > > DD > > [1] I noticed in Germany that Google numbers are different than in > the US and noticed also that numbers differ depending what browser > you use. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight [3] I wondered > if an open standards organization might, in the future, become > tempted to enforce a copyright on its standard that prevents so > blatant a derivative artwork, in violation of the Berne treaty on > copyright. I wonder.... That would be more fun than either Apple v > Microsoft over look and feel or Netscape v Microsoft over unfair > competition. The fear of damages might just... ahh... speculation is > such a joy! I know the moderators here sometimes fuss when talk > become litigious, so please be assured, dear moderators, that this is > purely the most delicious of speculation, nothing more. [4] > http://www.netfxharmonics.com/2007/06/Silverlights-Adoption-as-Public-De-Facto-Standard.aspx > [5] When opinions such as this become citations in our public > encyclopedia, it may give cause to question the very fabric of the > public encyclopedia. [6] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight#Relationship_to_existing_Web_standards > [7] It is interesting that in HTML5's inclusion of almost everything > webbish in its purview, "reasoning with uncertainty" and "emotion" > are not included, > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-svg-ig/2008JulSep/0035.html > perhaps because of a rarity of uncertainty. [8] "Creator of Web spots > a flaw in Internet Explorer" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26646919/ > ------------------------------------ ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ----Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
