On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 06:53 -0700, Gerald Bauer wrote: > 1. Standards are something the underdogs like to wave > in front of people's noses
Not true. Depends on the body implementing a standard and, depends on the standard. For instance, Microsoft adheres to most low-level standards (otherwise the Internet just wouldn't work). But Microsoft needs to acheive a form of vendor lock-in as that's a key strategy for them. Adobe, on the other hand, tends to compete on the strength of it's products, so Adobe adhere's to most standards very well. > 2. The people that make the software that other people > use are the ones that set the standards True, but getting your software used can be hard if your software doesn't work with everybody elses. > 3. Standards are only convenient until you become a > top dog, then you rewrite them yourself Define "top dog". 95% market saturation? Sure, you get to push things a bit. But it's not like IE doesn't mostly implement HTML or JS. > 4. I'm getting sooooo tired of hearing about > standards, when all they do is hold back innovation Howso? There are innovative standards. SVG has been around for many, many years. Why has it taken so long to be implemented? It's a very good standard. > 5. Personally, a lot of the W3C stuff I see is, well, > dubious at best Like? > 6. Trying to use existing standards or creating new > standards to "ward off the XAML threat"--ROTFLMAO. > Pass the drugs please. Agreed. XAML is a Microsoft product that competes with existing standards. Try and beat 'em or join 'em. You joined them. ;) > 7. OK, standards ARE a good thing. But standards are > good for "defensive" posturing--making things work > together, creating repeatable processes, getting > people to work together efficiently and safely, etc. > Standards are not an "offensive" weapon to wield like > a sword at the people/companies that control the > industry. Standards make the software world half-sane. What if there were no standards bodies. No w3c. No freedesktop.org (soft standards). Using software would be pure hell. > 8. Who cares what Mozilla/Opera/whatwg and crew do? Um, the millions of people that use their software do. Put a new user in front of IE and in front of Firefox for a session on the 'net. Bet you $100 they go for Firefox every single time. They make good software that improves our world as well as prevents Microsoft from locking us in to the one thing they should not be able to permeate: the Internet. > 9. What is the real issue here? Microsoft stole the > XUL idea and refactored it into XAML? Microsoft is > making a fortune while Mozilla is becoming as extinct > as its mascot? A lot of people are disgruntled that > they're not being recognized for all the work they've > done for the last 10-15 years? XAML is different to XUL, very different. XAML is OS-specific XMLisation of the Windows [Longhorn] APIs and deals with a ton more than XUL ever does. XUL is a (fairly) concise XML UI spec that runs on Mozilla. Is XUL a standard? No. How many apps implement XUL? Not many. Vexi certainly doesn't. People are fighting to _be_ the standard in this area. Mozilla XUL is but one competing product. XAML is being mistaken for one as well, although it's really an OS-specific thing and not fully web-targeted platform. It's more appropriate for local apps than web ones. > 10. Microsoft is going to change the web browsing > experience. Whether they play nicey-nice with any > standards committee is up to Microsoft, not you. I doubt it. They could if Longhorn is as successful as XP and gets 50% of the market like XP has. It won't. That dog has had it's day. In the two years between now and the Longhorn release there's going to be a big swing and the momentum will be with the rest of the world. Especially given the ludicrous PC requirements Longhorn looks like it'll will lay down. I'd be surprised if Longhorn hit 25% of the market. For all it's bells and whistles, it just won't be worth it when there's Free alternatives and people know about it. The world is only just finding out about Free Software y'know. > I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post. I wouldn't say 'flame'. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I just disagree with yours, but I certainly see where you are coming from. Some people do misuse standards as a way to detract from other software. At the end of the day, it's how good the software is that counts, IMVHO. -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Online @ www.charlietech.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X. >From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the one installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504 _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
