- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:54:23 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > That may have been an aim, but it sure wasn't one that came to bear. > > javascript won that battle. I can't find the original for this, so I've threaded it to the reply. Microsoft doesn't seem to believe that JavaScript (i.e. EcmaScript, plus HTML plus object models) won the battle, as they are pushing .NET, which owes most of its inheritance to Java not JavaScript. I think this is one of the reasons why IE development is frozen. I suspect the main reasons that JavaScript is popular are: - as I think shown here, people don't consider scripted web pages to be programs, so they don't see scripting's proper use as requiring technical skills (even though it very much does need them - and once the managment decision is made, the work may be handed off to people skilled in using the wrong tool for the job); - you can start with a static mockup or cut and paste from other sites to create some sort of prototype, whereas more conventional programming languages either need development tools sets, or the ability to think in depth at the outset - once you have the prototype, you will tend to complicate it rather than start over and code it in a way that handles the required richness of behaviour in an elegant way. Often tools that do simple things easily make doing more complex things very difficult, but the project can be sold on the simple model. I think Microsoft see their revenue as coming from business customers with intranets, and that those customers are maturing towards realising that simple workarounds have their limits and complex systems need languages designed for them. They certainly don't want to be just another supplier of products conforming to a specification created by a consortium with their competitors, so don't really want their products to fall within the scope of the W3C, if they can avoid it. That means that there is a risk that an important area for accessibilty will be taken out of the scope of W3C.
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 06:17:24 UTC