++
On 11/10/2008, at 2:21 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > 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 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/
