Alternatives to the W3C
cbullard at hiwaay.net
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 ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ 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