Re: New file format names

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 18:27 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> Of course I don't agree to any such thing, as that has nothing to do
>> with Hakon's reservation.  Unless you'd like to provide quotes from
>> him that state that unambiguously?
>
> He made some pretty plain statements and
> speaks for himself.  I can't much help you
> on the comprehension end (in spite of trying).

Ah, the old "Well, if you don't know, then I'm not going to tell you"
defense.  That doesn't work very well if you're not sleeping with the
other party (or pointedly *not* sleeping with them, in fact).

Let me go ahead and quote Hakon then, and explain my reasoning.  I'll
let you correct me:

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>
>  > > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser
>  > > vendors accept to ship an inferior product.
>  >
>  > Only in the sense that you are currently shipping an inferior product,
>  > and will continue to do so.  I don't think Opera considers itself
>  > inferior for not shipping EOT.
>
> Things change if you start supporting a "lite" version of a standards.
> People will expect you to soon start supporting the "full" standard.
>
>  > > Microsoft marketing would
>  > > quickly claim that only they "fully support EOT".
>  >
>  > That's claimable *right now*.
>
> Again, the comparison changes if competitors start supporting the
> "lite" version, thereby seemingly acknowleding that the standard is
> a good idea.

This makes it clear that Hakon's fears revolve essentially around
marketing - he fears that if a format named EOT-Lite is standardized,
it will deliver Microsoft a marketing coup where they can claim that
they support the *full* EOT standard, while other inferior browsers
only support the Lite version.

Changing the name does indeed solve this issue.  Microsoft is then
stuck with claiming that they support EOT and XYZ, while the other
browsers only support XYZ.  Without a substantial bit of history,
that's not very damning.  Since it's no longer valuable as a
soundbite, it's no longer a credible marketing threat.

Thus Hakon's objection is answered.

After that, he raises a further objection:

> I don't think "EOT Lite" is such a good idea. I don't *any* standard
> should have the word "lite" in it:
>
[snip quote about DSSSL Lite]

This is purely an aesthetic concern - he doesn't like "Lite" in a
standard at all.  Changing the name to not have Lite in it obviously
resolves this.

Thus Hakon's objection is answered.


Now, do you wish to dispute my analysis of Hakon's two objections
here, or dispute that the solution (changing the name) solves the
issue satisfactorily?

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 01:00:41 UTC