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

Re: 'propietary languages' section -- remove it

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:34:55 -0800
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <90BFED8C-4975-4402-BD81-4DD43A88D338@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> My suggestion is that the entire section be removed from the
>> specification.  The current text is political and inflammatory, and  
>> does
>> not contribute to the understanding of the text:
>> | This specification is independent of the various proprietary
>> | application languages that various vendors provide, but is  
>> intended to
>> | address many of the same problems.
>> |
>> | In contrast with proprietary languages, this specification is  
>> intended
>> | to define an openly-produced, vendor-neutral language, to be
>> | implemented in a broad range of competing products, across a wide  
>> range
>> | of platforms and devices. This enables developers to write  
>> applications
>> | that are not limited to one vendor's implementation or language.
>> | Furthermore, while writing applications that target vendor-specific
>> | platforms necessarily introduces a cost that application  
>> developers and
>> | their customers or users will face if they are forced to switch (or
>> | desire to switch) to another vendor's platform, using an
>> | openly-produced and vendor neutral language means that application
>> | authors can switch vendors with little to no cost.
> I agree that the old text did have some unnecessarily inflammatory
> statements, but on Chris' advice, those were removed. What is  
> political
> and inflammatory about the current text? It all seems objectively  
> accurate
> to me. The reason for having this section at all is the same as all  
> the
> other introduction sections -- people often ask why we are doing  
> this and
> how this fits in with other solutions, and this is part of the answer.
> Pretending that vendor-specific solutions don't exist won't make  
> them go
> away. I don't understand why we would remove this section.

I don't think the text is particularly inflammatory, except perhaps by  
calling out certain vendor-specific technologies by name. However, the  
current version just explains the benefits of open standards in  
general, essentially. I think that sort of thing could go without  
saying in an open standards specification.

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 22:35:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:41 UTC