Re: [xsl] Client-side cross-platform API

[Rob Belics <rob_belics@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:50 -0500, Scott Trenda wrote:
> Last I checked, Microsoft had group leads on the HTML5 working group. They also were heavily active in the first DOM, CSS and XSLT specifications, IIRC.
> 
> This is definitely getting off-topic, and not at all useful to the readers of this list. Intended or not, your post was flamebait, and would be much better received somewhere like the Javascript list on Usenet.
> 
> ~ Scott
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Belics [mailto:rob_belics@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] Client-side cross-platform API
> 
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 09:09 -0500, Scott Trenda wrote:
> > That's a little unfair; generally their products use the standard's spec if one exists at the time they implement the feature. It'd be more accurate to say that they won't remove support for their existing syntax/architecture when a new one is introduced in a W3C spec.
> > 
> > ~ Scott
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Belics [mailto:rob_belics@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:50 AM
> > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [xsl] Client-side cross-platform API
> > 
> > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 20:32 -0500, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 23:58 +0000, Michael Kay wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It seems there is one API for Microsoft and one for everyone else
> > > I've often wondered why we (W3C) don't standardise one or the other...
> > > 
> > > Liam
> > > 
> > Because Microsoft will always be on the opposing side.
> > 
> 
> As a web developer, I follow the HTML/browser goings-on. Microsoft has
> been on the opposite side with javascript, css, and, recently, the html5
> working group. Showing up years late, after all the other browser
> vendors have signed off on things, they typically write up a long list
> of opposing views. 
> 
> I don't want to degrade this into a flamefest but that was the reason
> for my comment.
> 

Now, I tried to back out gracefully, so don't start accusations. If
anything, my comment was tongue in cheek, but defending Microsoft with
their activities of 10 years ago is poor defense of their activities
since and, with that, I will no longer respond to this.