Invisible wrote:
>>> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the 
>>> specs.)
>>
>> Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or 
>> will follow those specs?
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should let somebody make up some 
> mangled mess of a system, and then stamp it as a "standard", rather than 
> designing something properly?

No. I'm saying that if you're going to standardize something, you should 
either standardize what people are already doing, or standardize what people 
aren't yet doing, rather than trying to "standardize" what people are 
already doing but in a different way.

And when you're trying to standardize communication mechanisms, you should 
probably strive to ensure interoperability, given that it's, you know, 
communication and all that.

> Stuff like making something like Flash a standard rather than designing 
> SVG? And the single proprietry implementation should be the standard spec?
> 
> Isn't that exactly why everybody's so upset with the MS document 
> "standard"?

You obviously missed the part where I mentions "multiple inteoperating 
implementations available to the public", right?

> (Not that your claims are unfounded - AFAIK, nobody has implemented the 
> CSS3 drop shadow properties, for example. But then, that's a fairly 
> dubious feature in the first place...)

That's exactly my point. Nobody follows the standard because they're 
prescriptive and made up out of whole cloth.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message