W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 1997

Re: Rebuttal: IE4.0 and W3C Standards

From: Anonymous <nobody@hidden.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:21:21 -0800
Message-Id: <199703112321.PAA08832@jefferson.hidden.net>
To: www-talk@w3.org
Murray Maloney wrote:
> 
> At 09:20 PM 06-03-97 -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
> >Thomas Reardon wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for playing Erik.  Next?
> >
> >Is this some sort of Micro$oft "tough-boy" talk?
> >
> [...]
> >
> >You and your company should go back and crawl in a cave in Redmond, and
> >let those of us with integrity and ability do the real work.
> >
> Wow! That's pretty tough talk coming from someone who
> claims to have big balls, but doesn't have enough to
> identify himself as other than a "nobody".

You assume I'm male.

Remailers are useful for saying what needs to be said without the
Legal Beagles (tm) from Micro$oft coming after you.

> 
> I have been working on the development of HTML specs
> since 1994, and it is my opinion that the process
> for developing new features in HTML has never been
> better than has been in the past few months.

I have no doubt or disagreement.

> 
> Submissions are frequently rejected by the HTML WG
> and the CSS WG, or are turned back for further work.
> Members of these working groups are being scrupulous
> about following the W3C process.
> 
> No matter what your opinion of Microsoft, Netscape,
> or any of the other members of these working groups,
> it is inappropriate to slam the process or result
> based on personally held feelings.

This is probably true. However, 1) this is not a formal working
group list; 2) Micro$oft's history has been _completely_ anti-standard
. It's "we'll do it Bill's way because we can". Regardless of the meager
attempts they make from time to time now.

> 
> As the spokesperson for SoftQuad on matters pertaining
> to our relationship with W3C in general and these working
> groups in particular, I resent the implication that the
> members serve only to "rubber stamp" proposals emanating
> from MS and NS. SoftQuad has been a proponent of good
> design and clear specifications since the inception of
> the original IETF HTML WG, and later under the auspices
> of the W3C.
> 

I do not suggest such. In fact, I'd say that the W3C and IETF have done
a fairly good job of not rubber-stamping BS from these companies just
because they are "important" companies.

My complaint is with Micro$oft and those that "tote the party line",
not the W3C or IETF.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 1997 18:24:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:22 GMT