RE: Venting

Subject: RE: Venting
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:55:49 -0500
HI Guy,

Fortunately as you point out he is right on the mark, which is why we can
hope the browser manufacturers will impliment support for rendering FOs so
they can claim 100% XSL Rec conformance. Without such preasure I feel we'd
be wading in the quagmire of HTML/CSS for some time to come.

Don't expect that too much Guy. The market reality is this: One browser is
now under complete remake and I am talking here of Mozilla (We struggle each
day to convert a monolithic piece of software into a set of components) -
This browser is now free and XSL conformance is not necessarily an
incentive. Joe Bloe who use the browser everyday don't give a dam about XSL
as long as he can access info and services with his browser. An other
manufacturer is Microsoft and will do what they want as long as it serve
their market (I didn't said they don't care about their market, they do a
lot). They are not in a rush to modify things now that competition is nearly
over. Each time you buy a new PC you get a MS browser so, some time down the
road... I tell you all thing to remind that market pressure are not what
they where and don't expect 100% XSL compliance be an incentive for big
players (either Microsoft or AOL). It is a lot more important for small
players who can appeal to a certain market (at least with server side XSL
processing - not client side processing). There is a higher probability that
XSL will be popular on the server side for developers (yes again the old
technology introduction curve again - maybe an upgraded version - just
recall here Jeffrey Moore concept). It then more important for small
companies to be 100% compliant than for big companies. And these small
companies can sell that for server based solutions. So, to keep of this in a
single spec do favor big guys but hurt deeply small guys. What Don said, is,
give small producers a chance and help also help the overall market by
adding more choice and innovation.

It is not a technical issue. And James replied well to the request.

It is a commercial issue. Are big guys having a more important lobby at W3?
Maybe. But if all actual XSL engine manufacturers make a official subset,
give it a name and sign this (I mean here having more than one company agree
on this and set new release to announce that) you may have now some pressure
on W3. It is just a question of cooperating. But the idea to try first a
lobby at W3 seems fair. If it doesn't work then, our capacity to unify and
cooperate will be tested. Freedom is to have the choice to not accept what
is against our interests. And maybe here W3 do not represent the small
producers interests nor do it represents users interest (invontarily I think
because a lot of W3 people have good intentions)

Didier PH Martin

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread