> 1. "Proprietary" [...] > I'd be happy to change "proprietary" to "vendor-specific".
Then we would need to count how many vendors implement or support or use HTML5 as you have specified in your document, vs. how many vendors have implemented or support or use Flash and Silverlight, in order to determine whether your document is any less "vendor-specific" than Flash or Silverlight, and we would need to discuss whether "implement" or "support" or "use" are the right factors that make one thing over another more or less "vendor-specific", and whether "vendor-specific" is an appropriate topic for discussion in a W3C technical specification. Such a debate belongs in the blogosphere and in PR machinery of your company or those your company sponsors, and not in a standards specification. > 1. "language": Neither Flash" nor Silverlight are languages. [...] > I'd be happy to change "language" to "platform". But the document you have written is not a platform. Some platforms may implement your specification in the future; the Google web server is a platform, Mozilla is a platform, and the Apple iPhone and Safari are platforms. They are implementations of one or more languages and associated interfaces. If you want to compare platforms to platforms for cost, ease of use, customer support, performance, and so forth, that again is the topic for technical product reviews and advocacy by the various marketing departments associated with promoting those platforms, but not appropriate in a standards document. I can find many such comparisons. If you want to compare technical specifications to technical specifications, languages to languages, then you can compare the languages and their features independent of the implementations that exist for them. > 1. "Similar" [...] I'd be happy to change "similar" to "other". I don't know how to compare your specification of a language to "other" specifications without actually enumerating the languages you are comparing to, because each is different. Java is another platform for web interactivity, and has an associated language. So is JPEG2000 JFIF. If you have some technical specifications that you want to compare your technical specification to, you should name them, and provide actual comparison of the technical specifications, rather than continuing to insist on including marketing polemics in what is supposedly a "vendor-neutral" document. Regards, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
