Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)

[Colin Muller]

If I may stray off-topic for a second, I'd like to second the view that
a Good Idea supported by Running Code is probably the most workable
alternative to the W3C standards slowgress; it's undoubtedly more
effective than mailing list flame wars. But I digress, so back to the
main point of this thread ...

http://www.TheCounter.com/stats/1999/December/browser.html

In brief: IE5.x 41%, IE4.x 36%, NS4.x 17%, everything else 1% or less.
Based on about 497 million unique visitors (unique over what time period
is not specified) over the month of December. Sites involved are mainly
general-interest and not big commercial ones.

All of which suggests to me that XML is best kept server side in open
environments for a good while yet.

Of course, 1% is enough people to earn you a gold record.

Colin Muller

Miles Sabin wrote:
> 
> Brandt Dainow wrote,
> > SUMMARY:
> > IE 5= 46.6%
> > IE 4= 23.2%
> > NS 4= 25.8%
> > NS 3= 01.5%
> > REST= 02.9%
> 
> I still have a gut feeling that 46.6% is unrepresentatively
> high.

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.