RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry)

It's always interesting to see how people ignore Occam's Razor when it
comes to Microsoft and see every action the company takes as either to
result of some conspiracy or part of some grand vision. I don't work for
the browser team but don't doubt that Tim's estimation of the cause of
what lead to the current state of affairs is more accurate than some
conscious decision to "wait for something better". 

However instead of idly speculating I'm sure you can just ask our HTML
working group reps to give you some sort of opinion on the matter
[granted it may not be the answer you seek but it is better than wrongly
ascribing motives to some constrained group of developers in Redmond]. 

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming
friendly fire.           

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: WWW-Tag
>
> > I think Microsoft, like every technology vendor, is busy 
> and short of 
> > staff.  Right at the moment there's not much market advantage for 
> > microsoft to pour heavy amounts of investment and creativity into 
> > enhancing the web browser, a product which brings no 
> revenue and wins 
> > no  market share.
> 
> Hmm.  See above -- there's a big, ugly, practical problem 
> that nearly every serious HTML user has, and for which the 
> W3C Recommends a solution.  I would think that the folks in 
> Redmond (who, uhh, could hire an AWFUL lot of developers with 
> that $30 odd billion they have burning a hole in their
> wallet) if they thought that XLink solved the problem, simply 
> for fear of LOSING market share if someone else implemented 
> it and solved people's link management problems.  The MS 
> folks are, to greatly understate the point, no dummies, and 
> not horribly resource constrained, so I suspect there is a 
> deeper answer than "busy and short of staff."

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 18:33:49 UTC