Alternatives to the W3C

[Len Bullard]

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
> barrier.

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
"machine/platform/software" 
independent?  Is the content independent?   Is is reliable?  What are
the 
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?

len



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.