- From: J. Graham <jg307@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:38:48 +0000 (GMT)
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