[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same, relation to XForms, implementation reqs.
jg307 at hermes.cam.ac.uk
Sun Jan 9 08:38:48 PST 2005
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:50:52 +0100, Olav Junker Kjær <olav at olav.dk> wrote:
>> Thefore it must be possible to implement the WHAT specs on top of
>> Internet Explorer, using only non-binary extensions. XHTML, SVG, XForms
>> etc. is simply out of the picture, although we might all agree that they
>> are technically better for building rich applications.
> The problem with this argument is that you're pretty much saying "we
> can't build a browser as good as IE"
Without wanting to get mired in the discusion about the extent to which
Web Forms is possible to implement in IE, your paraphrasing of the
argument makes no sense. The market reality is that IE owns 90%+ and has
the ability (through Windows bundling, apathy, the lax HTML parser, custom
intranet apps, widespread developer familiarity and other factors) to hold
that share indefintley (the same may well be true of Flash vs SVG, for
example). That has nothing to do with whether the competition is better or
not. Your statement is a good example of ignoring the context of
technology and blindly assuming that success or faliure is based entirely
on technical merit.
More information about the whatwg