Alternatives to the W3C

Steven Champeon schampeo at
Wed Jan 19 23:21:28 GMT 2000

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Steven Livingstone wrote:
> I think we are forced to do this for two reasons:
> 1. The users want a interface like "the one we had before" which typically
> means a client/server based application. Netscape (and no doubt Opera) are
> *very* unusable in this context, although you can get Netscape to do a bit
> of what you want after a lot of coding. IE just does it and allows us to use
> XML, so I don't know if such users would be so poor - indeed achieving the
> benefits offered by XML woudl imply the exact opposite to me. !? I have been
> able to break all of my applications into complely seperate layers from XML
> to COM and it's great ! I can even make it look and work liek a windows
> app - the business wants this and they pay for the systems.

And the folks in your audience who don't have the latest browser? What then?
> 2. No-one else seems interested in the fact that app dev is moving this way.
> I have been told that the next version of Netscape won't offer support for
> XML and XSL - at least that is hte case for the current test version.

Hm. If you're referring to Mozilla, I recommend that you download it again.
They've had some very cool XML+DOM-driven test stuff as part of the standard
distro for several of the more recent milestone versions. As for XSL support
in the client, you're right:

The rationale is sensible, IMHO.

Frankly, I'm thinking of XSL as a server-side technology, especially so given
that XSLT has roughly the same format and function (though with XML->XML
translations rather than XML->HTML translations).


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