5 ms·

I agree, they do a great job following the standards. I love that. What I don't love is when they break away. That's my whole point - work with the standards

by dos1 15y ago

I agree, they do a great job following the standards. I love that. What I don't love is when they break away. That's my whole point - work with the standards body to get your new cool tech introduced. Don't just go rogue and do whatever you want, that's when problems arise.

yanw 15y ago
"Breaking away" as you describe it sounds like innovation to me, and pacing innovation to standard bodies would kill it. I can't think of specifics but surly most of what is considered the standard today was once the experimentation of one company or one lab.
- dos1 15y ago
  Really? When Microsoft "broke away" and created ActiveX, you were in support of that too because it was innovation? Or how bout Adobe and Flash?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - statictype 15y ago
    ActiveX and Flash were certainly innovations. One of them didn't pan out[1] and the other did and lasted for quite some time. You realize that if not for Flash, sites like Youtube wouldn't have been possible at the time that it was released? [1] ActieX didn't pan out for the web as a whole - it fared well behind the walls of enterprises.
  - AlisdairO 15y ago
    If Microsoft made ActiveX open and easy for other browser manufactures to implement in a cross-platform manner, I would absolutely have been in support of it. They didn't, so I wasn't. Standards bodies move slowly. Non-standardised innovation across browsers is absolutely to be encouraged, as long as it is done in a manner that allows others to implement that innovation too. This sort of innovation is what helps us decide what is worth being made into a standard.
  - DannoHung 15y ago
    Maybe not ActiveX, but when Microsoft created XMLHttpRequest in their javascript engine, that ended up being pretty significant and great for how the web works today.
jrockway 15y ago
What problems arise? Why should "standards bodies" affect what features Free Software has? Why allow anyone to release any software at all?
myko 15y ago
I would agree with you if their breaking away weren't open sourced.

by dos1 15y ago

yanw 15y ago

"Breaking away" as you describe it sounds like innovation to me, and pacing innovation to standard bodies would kill it. I can't think of specifics but surly most of what is considered the standard today was once the experimentation of one company or one lab.

dos1 15y ago
Really? When Microsoft "broke away" and created ActiveX, you were in support of that too because it was innovation? Or how bout Adobe and Flash?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- statictype 15y ago
  ActiveX and Flash were certainly innovations. One of them didn't pan out[1] and the other did and lasted for quite some time. You realize that if not for Flash, sites like Youtube wouldn't have been possible at the time that it was released? [1] ActieX didn't pan out for the web as a whole - it fared well behind the walls of enterprises.
- AlisdairO 15y ago
  If Microsoft made ActiveX open and easy for other browser manufactures to implement in a cross-platform manner, I would absolutely have been in support of it. They didn't, so I wasn't. Standards bodies move slowly. Non-standardised innovation across browsers is absolutely to be encouraged, as long as it is done in a manner that allows others to implement that innovation too. This sort of innovation is what helps us decide what is worth being made into a standard.
- DannoHung 15y ago
  Maybe not ActiveX, but when Microsoft created XMLHttpRequest in their javascript engine, that ended up being pretty significant and great for how the web works today.

jrockway 15y ago

What problems arise? Why should "standards bodies" affect what features Free Software has? Why allow anyone to release any software at all?

myko 15y ago

I would agree with you if their breaking away weren't open sourced.