W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: CSS is doomed (10 years per version ?!?)

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:20:50 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c801050701082062f6b9bb@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/1/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Orion Adrian wrote:
> >Hardly. But their turn-around is closer to 5 years, not 10. And yes,
> >there is a long time between when CSS 1.0 was released and CSS 2.1 was
> >released. I trust the iterative nature they have.
> >
> >
> Could you please drop the 10 years? You are comparing a number that
> included 5 years of user adoption time with a number that doesn't. The
> turn-around (as-in implementation is available after specification) of
> CSS is also closer to 5 years.

Sorry, no. Because I believe Microsoft can do it and has done it in 5.
CSS 2.1 still hasn't come out of CR. It could very well be 15 years
before it sees widespead use or even 20. .Net 2.0 is already seeing
some use and will have fairly widespread adoption within 1-2 years.
Exact numbers I don't have.
> >This was a majorly good thing. I liked this a lot. Though the fact
> >that CSS3 is a monstrosity that will never be actually implemented in
> >full is another story. Who needs all those properties?
> >
> >
> We'll see. Although I agree that it is big, a lot of the things in it
> also make sense.
> But really: CSS 2.0 was also bigger. CSS 2.1 is based on the actual
> implementations that resulted from CSS 2.0. We will see a similar CSS
> 3.1 in due time.

When, when I'm old and gray? We've yet to see 2.1 implemented. 2.0 was
never really implemented. And personally many people still won't want
to use it, preferring HTML tables over CSS layout. Did it ever occur
to anyone to make a system to duplicated HTML tables in ease of use,
but managed to separate content from presentation?

> >>So the only difference really is: it is proprietary. With all the
> >>disadvantages that carries.
> >>
> >>
> >And all the advantages it carries. There are some you know.
> >
> >
> Not many, and they are overshadowed by the disadvantages. I don't see
> how you couldn't mind "vendor lock-in". Aren't you glad you can use
> Firefox now? Haven't you learned by now that as soon as Microsoft gains
> a monopoly, their innovation slows to a halt (evidence: Internet Explorer)?

This requires a value judgement. The market seems to be siding on
vendor lock-in.

As for the innovation point. The only product that hasn't seen much
development is IE. The core components of Windows often see
improvement. Microsoft by no means sits still. There media player has
seen consistent updates. Their office software (for which they have a
monopoly) has seen consistent updates.

> Vendor lock-in is bad and undesirable. No matter how you look at it.
> Competition and standards are good.
> >Yeah, but they will. XAML/.Net competes directly with
> >HTML/CSS/Javascript. I hope everyone here sees that.
> >
> >
> That is nonsense. XAML does in NO WAY compete with HTML / CSS /
> Javascript. They are orthogonal languages. HTML is for creating
> documents. XAML is for creating user interfaces, like XUL is.

HTML is a language confused. One of its major uses is interface
creation. XAML ties closely with Metro which is the document side of
it. Microsoft plans on killing HTML/CSS/Javascript. Or at least
turning it into minority of the web.

Orion Adrian

p.s. This will be my last post on Microsoft vs. Open Standards in this
thread. Most people have already lef the discussion probably as bored
with the subject as I am. It's a tired set of arguments between nodern
religions and it's by no way going to end here.
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 15:20:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:19 UTC