|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:15 PM EST |
No. IE was inferior in comparison to Netscape, and it is not that different
today. Look at the differences between Firefox and IE. Last time I checked, MS
still created an inferior product because it is NOT standards compliant (and the
little bit that they are is shaky at best). Lynx and W3c are better browsers
than IE in that regard.
We have inferior products because some companies can't seem to figure out how
this standards compliance thing works.
What if the situation were reversed? What if Microsoft had their say,
strong-armed 3wc to adopt changes to HTML which required a paid license from
Microsoft to be in compliance? Would you really want to pay to be in
compliance? I wouldn't. I like my freedom.
I have to say. I'm beginning to think that there is something that I'm just not
understanding, here. Explain to me how it is any different in principle for a
standards body to issue an encumbered standard (one that requires someone to pay
a troll toll in order to come into compliance) and someone trying to sneak
encumbered code into the Linux distro in hopes of snatching someone's purse?
It seems to me a really, really bad idea.
If a company wants to make money on a product they have the rights to, then
that's fine. Let them make money from the product. It just doesn't make any
sense (to me) for the standards body to be involved in it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
