[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Alternatives to the W3C

• From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>, <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:11:18 -0800

Tim it may be too complicated to explain in email, but we do web content
systems, and therefore our customers are web content developers, and I'm not
speaking for UserLand as much as I'm telling you what I see with our
customers. Yes, we must look at things as they appear in browsers, and after
several years of stagnation in browsers, and the falloff of Netscape, the
developers are giving up and going with Microsoft. That's what I see. Ann
Navaro may think it's not been proven, and Harold may be incensensed and
offended, and they may both be right, but that's what I see. Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
To: <xml-dev@i...>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Alternatives to the W3C


> At 01:38 PM 1/19/00 -0800, Dave Winer wrote:
> >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.
>
> Dave, please tell us you didn't really mean this.  I'm not talking about
> the IE5 issue; if you want to exclude a third of the market (at least;
there
> are still a lot of Macs and Unix boxes out there) from seeing your stuff,
> that's a business decision that you're free to take on its own merits.
>
> What's silly is the notion that any Web Developer should operate on the
> basis that WYSIWYG is still alive in a world full of different screen
formats,
> resolutions, font repertoires, and color capabilities.
>
> I used to be a regular speaker at the Seybold conferences.  The Seybold
> crowd (heavy design geeks) initially kind of hoped the Web would go away,
> because they couldn't have the fine control over pixels and so on that
> they were used to.  I remember like yesterday going to one in '96 (maybe
> '95) when there was a keynote-with-demo of the first release of Adobe's
> PageMill... the demo featured drag&droping pictures into place on web
> pages, and having them come up just right in the browser.  WYSIWYG for
> the Web!  The crowd exploded in a roaring ovation.  I thought "These
> people Just Don't Get It".
>
> 4 years later, that crowd generally does get it.  And is living with
> the fact that you can have design excellence without WYSIWYG.  And
> PageMill is still a piece of crap. -Tim
>
> 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
> Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message
> unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
> unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address
>
> Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer
to OASIS.
>


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
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• References:
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Alternatives to the W3C
• Next by Date: RE: Alternatives to the W3C
• Previous by thread: Re: Alternatives to the W3C
• Next by thread: Re: Alternatives to the W3C
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread