Re: Alternatives to the W3C
Len Bullard wrote: > > Dave Winer wrote: > > > > >>It makes sense. We aren't quibbling that a web browser of some kind is > > needed, but is it TheWebBrowser (ie, the XHTML centric one), or just a > > content handler that knows HTTP and has an API for scripting? > > > > We've had this discussion at length on my site, and reached a conclusion. > > There are two types of developers in the world: > > > > 1. Web developers, who must look at the content exactly as their users look > > at it. For these people, today, that's MSIE 5.x on Windows, not any content > > handler, that specific one. > > > > 2. Everyone else. "You and me against the world, it looks like you and me against the world." It's an old song, Dave. If the web is some engineering singularity, what characteristic is the coupled driver that separates it from all others? The Web is not a force of nature. It is code. > > I could try to explain why this is so, but previous debates make me > > reluctant to try, so I won't. I will. Reliability. You are version bound for the same reason the proprietary system gets good reliability numbers: a single codebase under version control and compiled by configurable processes but predictable processes. You use a named component. Important. It is named for the codebase; not the spec. > > Think of it this way. You and I are developing > > for different platforms. You like what you do, I like what I do. Life is > > great. And will get better. I don't just develop offTheWeb. My job is to merge them and I think it is for most people here who work on content and code. Our problem is not XML. XML is fine. Our problem is XML, and DHTML, and X3D, and SVG and so on. Seamless interoperation must equate to behavioral fidelity over some predictable time or certain kinds of content cost too much: TV has to work every time you turn it on. You can't be buying a new tuner every week. If the TV is that maintenance intensive, it had better maintain itself. Sniffer scripts?????? If I were GatesTheSoftwareEng, I would ask myself the question the content developer community asks? How can we get the reliability numbers for the components up? So far, the solution is always tied to the named codebase. IDLs don't seem to say enough about behavior to assign numbers like MTBF. A spec, something an FPI names, is not the code. The component named by the namespace (eg, consider how SAX sets characteristics with namespaces) must have a logistics value. The dilemma is what is to be tested, how to make that available, and how to use that dynamically to determine the best components possible. Do that in real time. Behavioral fidelity expressed as reliability. IOW, as good as TV. len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format