- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:23:21 -0800
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: >The problem with the current text is that it doesn't really describe the >relationship with the technologies, but rather touts the benefits of >open standards-based solutions over proprietary alternatives. Lachlan, you've exactly distilled what I objected to in the first place. >However, I don't think it's necessary for this spec to make claims about >the costs associated with using proprietary technologies or point out >the problems with vendor lock-in, as the current text does. Exactly. Additionally, the original text implied that the HTML/web standards platform == Silverlight, Flash or XUL, which I personally think is a faulty assumption. I believe Silverlight and Flash are differently-shaped platforms, which might be used to build some of the same types of applications but are actually intended for different styles of programming; it should be clear what platform I'm most interested in and think has the broadest applicability from my CV, but trying to set up an apples-to-apples competition seemed needlessly divisive. Better, as you say, to point out the actual relationships. As an aside, Ian removed the term "lock-in" from the current text, at my request, though the exposition on switching cost is still there. -Chris
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 17:22:29 UTC