W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same, relation to XForms, implementation reqs.

From: J. Graham <jg307@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:38:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0501091630130.6236@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Jim Ley wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:50:52 +0100, Olav Junker Kj?r <olav at olav.dk> wrote:
>> Thefore it must be possible to implement the WHAT specs on top of
>> Internet Explorer, using only non-binary extensions. XHTML, SVG, XForms
>> etc. is simply out of the picture, although we might all agree that they
>> are technically better for building rich applications.
>
> The problem with this argument is that you're pretty much saying "we
> can't build a browser as good as IE"

Without wanting to get mired in the discusion about the extent to which 
Web Forms is possible to implement in IE, your paraphrasing of the 
argument makes no sense. The market reality is that IE owns 90%+ and has 
the ability (through Windows bundling, apathy, the lax HTML parser, custom 
intranet apps, widespread developer familiarity and other factors) to hold 
that share indefintley (the same may well be true of Flash vs SVG, for 
example). That has nothing to do with whether the competition is better or 
not. Your statement is a good example of ignoring the context of 
technology and blindly assuming that success or faliure is based entirely 
on technical merit.
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 08:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC