Alternatives to the W3C

[Len Bullard]

Michael Rose wrote:
>
> If the answer the answer to that question is yes (which apparently it
> is), and if that difference is important (which it seems to be to a
> significant number of developers here) then shouldn't future W3C
> standards address this problem? Otherwise, why should we even bother
> with the standards?
> 
> If browsers are really a commodity then, as others have said, the
> innovations should go through the W3C. Then browsers X and Y can
> compete on other features, reliability being an excellent example.

That brings us back to the original thread:  alternatives to the 
W3C.  The W3C does not insist on reliability in implementation.

Here is a different tact:  consider that the W3C specs are 
imcomplete with regards to implementation.  Reliability is testable 
for implemented components.  A spec may provide conformance criteria 
for conformance testing.  This is how MPEG approaches the problem 
using patented technologies.  The patents are an emotional issue 
for some and in my opinion, the content must not be tied to a 
patented implementation.  Yet, a patented implementation such as 
MPEG may provide licensed components with provable performance 
and conformance numbers that can deliver that content reliably.

Those who have said they insist on IE5 do so because they are insisting 
on reliability in the implementation of features to support the 
content.  They do not choose to get reliability for universal 
access through lowest common denominator design.

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.