- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:36:37 +0300
- To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Cc: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 27, 2007, at 01:05, Dave Raggett wrote: > Then you've missed the point of open standards. Yes you could > define a proprietary format, but then the user of that is locked > into that tool. You've swapped proprietary formats on the PC for > proprietary formats on the server. Out of the frying pan into the > fire as they say! TurboGears, Django, Ruby on Rails, etc. may lock you to a particular framework, but they are not proprietary. I think you are moving the lock-in just up a layer to your hypothetical tool interchange format, which is not all that different from J2EE not supposedly locking you in because J2EE stacks are available from different vendors. It's like XSLT. Using XSLT supposedly frees transformation code from lock-in to a particular programming language when compared to DOM or SAX manipulation in Java or Python. However, the lock-in just moves to XSLT which is itself a (special-purpose) programming language. Instead of porting a Python or Java to a different OS, the portability issue becomes implementing an XSLT interpreter on top of Java, Python, etc. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 26 March 2007 22:36:41 UTC