- From: Todd Russell <groovechicken@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:10:21 -0600
- To: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
>> So please, do the world a favor... break backward compatibility!!! > > I listed to a Chevron representative at the W3C Plenary who stood up > and said, "We have over 100,000 users using systems based on the > web. Please don't break backward compatibility." It is easy to say > to break backward compatibility. However, the reality is that there > are a number of large organizations who, like Chevron, are not > willing to (or maybe can't afford to is better said) use the > browsers that are not concerned about backward compatibility. Again, though, as I mentioned in my first response, why can't you guys just let people use both... 7 for backwards compatibility and 8 for standards compatibility? I realize how entwined IE is into the system, so how about this suggestion... keep 7 as the main browser and Windows Explorer foundation, but make 8 a stand-alone fat binary that people can download and run concurrently with 7. Make it clear to everyone that when 9 rolls around, the old will be phased out. That buys you at least 5 more years at the current rate of development. Or, upgrade everything to 8 and release 7 as a fat binary and call it Internet Explorer Corporate Edition. That would appease the companies who rely on old code and allow you to move forward. If you want to be a part of the web, though, you have to move forward and stop dragging the wounded soldier along... it's only slowing you down... and all the rest of us with you. It's high time people understood that high tech is a fast-moving industry and if you want to play the game, expect everything to change every 5 years at max. Either that or we just throw our hands up and go back to our electronic word processors and Atari 2600s. > Not quite as easy as you say. I don't believe it is easy, but doing things for the common good never are. Peace, Todd Russell P.S. Chevron was a bad example to apply your aside of "maybe can't afford to" given the obscene profits they were making last year. You'll find no sympathy for Chevron among those of use whose salaries are not high enough to make gasoline prices a non-issue.
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 23:16:52 UTC