W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [public-html] <none>

From: Jeff Cutsinger <jeff@cutsinger.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:05:12 -0500
Message-ID: <46321128.6020302@cutsinger.org>
To: Gareth Hay <ghay@garaidh.com>
CC: W3C List <public-html@w3.org>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Gareth Hay wrote:
> 
> On 27 Apr 2007, at 15:04, Jeff Cutsinger wrote:
> 
>> Gareth Hay wrote:
>>> If we discount the possibility of another browser manufacturer entering
>>> the market for a moment.
>>
>> Competition is overrated. It only benefits the consumer.
> 
> Reading is overrated. It only leads to understanding.

OK, I'll go ahead and say it: I'm sorry for being so snarky.

My point stands, however. You can't just discount the possibility of a
new browser entering the market. It's important.

> Besides, I'm only asking you keep your current Firefox, and then use the
> new Standards browser, or as I may have suggested, Have 1 browser with 2
> different modes - but do it properly, instead of the quirks mode mess we

Your suggestion is unworkable. Backtracking has already been suggested
with XHTML and the browser vendors rejected it.

> have, but hey sensationalise and say 10 programs, cos that's nearly what
> I suggested.

It's what you're implying-- a new browser (or mode, the only difference
being one is more user-friendly, but equally developer-hostile) every
time we decide the web isn't perfect.

>>> I don't see the problem, release HTML5 as "Web 2.0" and tell everyone
>>> they need a new browser, problem solved, you want Web2.0 sites, you need
>>> the new browser (just keep your old browser for the rest of the web)
>>
>> You know, you have a great point. Reality doesn't matter at all. We'll
>> simply get everyone to believe that something that is already here is
>> actually not and you need a new browser to get the same functionality as
>> already exists. Companies will be happy to implement their apps in such
>> a way that requires the consumer to download, install, and use a new
>> program, for no apparent reason at all. I'm sure that the fact that this
>> is completely untrue will have no bearing on its success.
> 
> So if we live in your reality, which I take it you are speaking for the
> whole world, we have to write browser to parse EVERY html ever, even if
> badly written and produce web pages that function and look identical
> across all potential browsers.

Absolutely. Actually, all that is necessary is to write your browser to
the spec, which will tell you exactly how to do that.

> After all, it's not like MS ever releases new versions of it's products
> that require you to import and re-save old documents is it?
> Why is the web exempt from this process? Why are you striving for what
> can at most be a complete mess?

a) it's not like Microsoft's practices (technical or otherwise) are
exactly lauded by everyone and they certainly shouldn't set the bar for
what we are doing here, b) when Microsoft releases a new program, at
least there are obvious, visible benefits to the user, and c) I have to
deal with Access 97 databases here at work all the time.

Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 15:05:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT