At 09:34 AM 2/9/98 +0100, Peter Flynn wrote:
>They appear to be unaware that there are two ways of making it work:
>1. wrapping it up in syntax which is as close to proprietary as they
> can get without actually breaking the language (ie only supporting
> the ms: namespace), using a rendering model just barely good
> enough to persuade the average user that it works, and providing
> any other features via proprietary technology (ActiveX, for example);
>2. following the standard, but doing it _better_ than anyone else.
>MS is perfectly capable of (2), but it requires an act of faith on
>_their_ part. The time is now right for them to come out in public
>and provide some concrete proof that they are serious about it.
>Then we can have some grounds for belief.
Conspiracy theorists might suggest that MS is attempting to tie people into
their namespace. This is valuable to them since they'll be the ones
defining the semantics of these names.
And you thought the tricks they played with their proprietary APIs were
evil ... you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Mark Baker. CTO, Beduin Communications Corp
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://www.beduin.com