- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:27:04 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Rob Lanphier wrote: > Difficult to say. Certainly, a certification program isn't going > to make bad journalism suddenly become good journalism. However, > if someone was going to check the veracity of the implication, who > would they go to? The W3C has made it clear that they will not > comment on the quality (or lack thereof) of member products. If > the certification program was well-known enough (through marketing > or other means), then MS would have been inviting CNet to get a > quote from that certification group. MS PR is not stupid though. They will not use the same language once certification is in place: "We blocked browser X from accessing our Web site because X does not support Passport protocol, preventing our customers from getting a great and secure experience at our Web site". In reality, the site will probably not be really blocked. It just will not "work" for X. > A certification mark would give the rest of the community a tool > for making users of MS products feel uncomfortable (at least until > MS got certified). I bet MS products will be ones of the first group to get certified [by a MS-sponsored certification company, for example]: "In CertificateForTheBuck lab tests, Internet Explorer has passed all our certification criteria, once again demonstrating MS leadership in supporting W3C standards". Alex.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 12:27:07 UTC