- From: T. V. Raman <tvraman@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:16:09 -0800
- To: jeacott@hardlight.com.au
- Cc: www-forms@w3.org
There are a couple of simple inferences to be drawn from all that has gone here. In general, when a new technology shows up, it creates new opportunities. New opportunities for some often translate to a threat to the established few; it is traditional for the established few to cry foul:-) The Web has always been a disruptive technology. It enabled a young upstart browser first from a university, later from a Valley startup to challenge the mighty. The rest of course is history. It's interesting to see of those some upstarts and revolutionaries wanting to stay with the past --- it's understandable but still lamentable. Incidentally someone speaking on behalf of the Mozilla Foundation on this thread declared that HTML 3.2 was the last good/stable/tested spec from the W3C. How many of us remember the tag soup tyranny of the mid-90's out of which HTML 3.2 was born? In fact HTML 3.2 was not designed; it was a spec written to document to the extent possible how the Web at that time "behaved" when views through the lens of the predominant browser of the time. Today people complain about a particular browser vendor having 90+% market share and therefore dictating the destiny of the Web. Let's remember that this same tyranny under a different browser made life just as unpleasant in the mid-90's --- where every Monday morning saw the addition of a new tag or an ill-named event attribute showing up. I believe the Web is still recovering from that mess, and has in the process stagnated during the period 98--04. In fact the move to XML-based technologies at the W3C, with XHTML 1 the first step was to introduce some method to the madness, and create something that was well-formed and predictable that the rest of the world, not just a couple of browser vendors could build on. I believe this broad XML vision driven by the W3C and its member companies has succeeded in spades as epitomized by the number of companies who are able to create products around these standards. Understandably, entities that see themselves as "Web Browser creators" feel short-changed in this raising of all boats and cry "the W3C is no longer about the Web" --- what this effectively translates to is that "they are not letting Web browser vendors define the Web". But at the end of the day, the Web Browser is just one possible lens through which one can view the content of the distributed Internet; just as minority share Web browsers argue in favor of "there should be more than one Web browser", taking the broader perspective leads to the insight that you need to be able to build on resources published on the Web using more than just Web browsers. This is not an argument to won or lost on a mailing list; I believe the debate is being successfully won by today's upstarts like Chiba and X-Port.Net to name but a few --Raman -- Best Regards, --raman ------------------------------------------------------------ T. V. Raman: PhD (Cornell University) IBM Research: Human Language Technologies Architect: RDC --- Conversational And Multimodal WWW Standards Phone: 1 (408) 927 2608 T-Line 457-2608 Fax: 1 (408) 927 3012 Cell: 1 650 799 5724 Email: tvraman@us.ibm.com WWW: http://almaden.ibm.com/u/tvraman (google:raman+labrador) AIM: emacspeak GPG: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/tvraman/raman-almaden.asc Snail: IBM Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Road San Jose 95120
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 01:16:28 UTC