Alternatives to the W3C

Len Bullard cbullard at
Wed Jan 19 20:02:13 GMT 2000

Tim Bray wrote:
> At 08:23 AM 1/19/00 -0800, Dave Winer wrote:
> >> Actually, I think the future is increasingly *in* the web browser
> >
> >I totally agree.
> Yup, and for one reason: end-users want it.  Len may be right that
> VB is way more convenient for the *programmer*, but the people of the
> world have voted with their feet, and they're just not gonna go back to
> custom-built clients. -Tim

That contradicts what we see in our business.  The inefficiency, 
slowness, security issues, costs of lifecycle maintenance and initial 
costs of development make it still somewhat impractical for large 
and complex applications.  Fitch & Mather only proves that the
of multiple modules is painful, the state maintenance is painful, the 
reliability across versions is low and the standards process that 
was to ameliorate these issues is inadequate and often produces specs
are baroque and difficult to implement.

Sales?  Well, one can at most times sell anything to someone.  Can 
they afford it?  It is the cost of the content that should be 
getting more attention.

Now, is the web browser object useful?  Yes and central, but 
not as a substitute for the operating system.  The future for 
new applications development is outside that and should be 
else that object becomes MacInAWintel.  Not a pretty thought.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list