W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

RE: ACTION-78: Suggestion text for 1.5.4

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:23:21 -0800
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D12127075745E648BBC075EF46983E1742DDE71708@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>The problem with the current text is that it doesn't really describe the
>relationship with the technologies, but rather touts the benefits of
>open standards-based solutions over proprietary alternatives.

Lachlan, you've exactly distilled what I objected to in the first place.

>However, I don't think it's necessary for this spec to make claims about
>the costs associated with using proprietary technologies or point out
>the problems with vendor lock-in, as the current text does.

Exactly.  Additionally, the original text implied that the HTML/web standards platform == Silverlight, Flash or XUL, which I personally think is a faulty assumption.  I believe Silverlight and Flash are differently-shaped platforms, which might be used to build some of the same types of applications but are actually intended for different styles of programming; it should be clear what platform I'm most interested in and think has the broadest applicability from my CV, but trying to set up an apples-to-apples competition seemed needlessly divisive.  Better, as you say, to point out the actual relationships.

As an aside, Ian removed the term "lock-in" from the current text, at my request, though the exposition on switching cost is still there.

-Chris

Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 17:22:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT