Alternatives to the W3C

Bill dehOra Wdehora at
Fri Jan 21 10:00:52 GMT 2000

:  Everyone knows the TV manufacturers make little or no money 
:  and often lose money on TV's
:  these days. The only reason they keep selling them is 
:  because making TV's helps keep a lot
:  of people employed as well as the fact that they are a 
:  gateway to selling other gadgets.

You're giving TV manufacturers too much credit methinks.

:  Standardization also somtimes is synonymous with stagnation. 
:  Once something is
:  standardized, by definition it is not supposed to change. 

Que? Standards are about pace and consensus, not stagnation. Standards do
change, just not very quickly.

:  I completely agree. But web browsers are not akin to a 
:  programming language. Web browsers
:  are an application I feel even though their interface is 
:  somewhat defined by the content
:  coming from a web server. Many people may disagree but I 
:  really think that the web browser
:  had a lot more potential before certain mergers and 
:  acquisitions killed the corporate
:  culture over at Netscape.

What potential? Content and media styles drive browsers. People need
browsers to see this cool stuff. Bowsers are just rendering engines at the
end of the day. The main room for improvement in the *browser* I can see is
in the UIs which are junk. There were better browser interface ideas going
around 20 years ago. Even Vannevar Bush had better ideas about bookmarks
than the major browsers do now, and that was fifty years ago.

:  Of course. But what is the motivation to do so other than 
:  for the sheer public good. Why
:  should AOL care at all whether people use Netscape or not? 
:  Why should MS care whether
:  people use IE now that Netscape is a defunct company? Where 
:  is the motivation among
:  developers and companies to build a better browser?

Hey, maybe it keeps a lot of people employed : ) But these companies aren't
about building better browsers, they're about share, be that market  or
mind. Browsers are a way to achieve that. Do you think for a minute that AOL
want their subscribers using IE over Netscape?

But generally, tell me, why do we need more 'innovation' in browsers. If
anything they needed the fat cut off them, ie removing the last three years
'innovation'. Real innovation *might* come with an open browser, just like
it did with a certain open operating system. I rather pay for an open source
browser than have a free one I can't access.

:  Cars are not the same thing as software. But you illustrate 
:  my point exactly in that users
:  do have a clear choice between a Ford, Chevrolet, or 
:  something with a little more resale
:  value like a Honda or Toyota. In the software industry, 
:  users have the choice between two
:  stagnant browsers that will likely see few if any 
:  innovations in the years to come.

No bad thing in my view. Continuous innovation is no better than continuous



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at 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 mailing list