Alternatives to the W3C
cbullard at hiwaay.net
Thu Jan 20 19:13:41 GMT 2000
Ann Navarro wrote:
> >But the barriers aren't artificial.
> Sure they are. The minute you say "you must use <arbitrary browser/software
> here>" for an application being served over a medium that was designed to
> be machine/platform/software independent, you've created an artificial
The minute my customer requires a feature that only one browser supports
or supports reliably, they have contracted for a transaction. That is
not a barrier. (NOTE: I am not necessarily saying "one browser" is the
answer; a reliable browser is and that is tested in the medium.)
Precisely which medium are you talking about being
independent? Is the content independent? Is is reliable? What are
costs? Is universal access the requirement or is reliable access to a
defined audience the requirement? How do you specify that audience and
ensure that reliability?
Contracts, Ann. Do some proposal work for mission critical systems
and see what the engineers tell you when you submit product change
requests to them which request "universal access". Have you been
sued for failing to meet the terms of such a contract?
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
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at ic.ac.uk the message
unsubscribe xml-dev (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email at your-subscribed-address
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
More information about the Xml-dev