«

As MSIE's market share crumbles, it isn't just Firefox picking up the gains
<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-316739.html>.

Don't you just love a standards-based world? Where you can choose your
software based on how it fits your needs, not because you're forced to?

In article <>, "geoff" <> wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> As MSIE's market share crumbles, it isn't just Firefox picking up the
>> gains <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-316739.html>.
>>
>> Don't you just love a standards-based world? Where you can choose your
>> software based on how it fits your needs, not because you're forced
>> to?
>
>That's been the situation for years. MS must be doing something right.

... like ... um ... breaking perfectly good standards ? Some of the least
compliant sites are the MS ones. Doesn't sound clever or helpful to me.

"Bruce Sinclair" < >
wrote in message news:4a4aeffe$0$1059$ ...
> In article <>, "geoff"
> <> wrote:
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> As MSIE's market share crumbles, it isn't just Firefox picking up
>>> the
>>> gains <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-316739.html>.
>>>
>>> Don't you just love a standards-based world? Where you can choose
>>> your
>>> software based on how it fits your needs, not because you're
>>> forced
>>> to?
>>
>>That's been the situation for years. MS must be doing something
>>right.
>
> .. like ... um ... breaking perfectly good standards ? Some of the
> least
> compliant sites are the MS ones. Doesn't sound clever or helpful to
> me.
>

True, but isn't that the essence of competition?

Neither you nor I are compelled to go to, or use any website that
doesn't comply with whatever standards we approve of.

Personally, I quite like some of what MS does (not everything
certainly, but some things).

Therefore, I will visit and implicitly (if not explicitly) support
them by using some of those websites.

People who don't like what they are doing will, presumably, boycott
those sites.

Alan.

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

In message <who->, whoisthis wrote:

> Why, its called progress otherwise would would have stopped at POP2
> rather than POP3, IMAP, etc etc, same with HTML....

> Standards can impede progress.

Since when was POP2 or IMAP pre-v4 a standard? Or indeed, any version of
HTML prior to about v3.2?

In article <h2f416$gfq$>, "Alan" <> wrote:
>"Bruce Sinclair" < >
>wrote in message news:4a4aeffe$0$1059$ ...
>> In article <>, "geoff"
>> <> wrote:
>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> As MSIE's market share crumbles, it isn't just Firefox picking up
>>>> the
>>>> gains <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-316739.html>.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you just love a standards-based world? Where you can choose
>>>> your
>>>> software based on how it fits your needs, not because you're
>>>> forced
>>>> to?
>>>
>>>That's been the situation for years. MS must be doing something
>>>right.
>>
>> .. like ... um ... breaking perfectly good standards ? Some of the
>> least
>> compliant sites are the MS ones. Doesn't sound clever or helpful to
>> me.

>True, but isn't that the essence of competition?

The essence of competition to me is to find new and better ways to do
things. Taking an agreed standard and breking it (on purpose) does not you
will notice, feature in my definition.

>Neither you nor I are compelled to go to, or use any website that
>doesn't comply with whatever standards we approve of.

Yep. But the purpose of standards of all sorts is to allow us to do that if
we want to.

>Personally, I quite like some of what MS does (not everything
>certainly, but some things).

I can come up with a (very) short list of things I think they do well

>Therefore, I will visit and implicitly (if not explicitly) support
>them by using some of those websites.
>People who don't like what they are doing will, presumably, boycott
>those sites.

Not boycott exactly. Report the site as broken and move on would be my take
on it.

"Bruce Sinclair" < >
wrote in message news:4a4bf643$0$1056$ ...

{Snip}

>
>>Therefore, I will visit and implicitly (if not explicitly) support
>>them by using some of those websites.
>>People who don't like what they are doing will, presumably, boycott
>>those sites.
>
> Not boycott exactly. Report the site as broken and move on would be
> my take
> on it.
>

Absolutely - they lose your business, and in doing so, you 'vote'
against their way of doing things, compared to their competition
(whoever that may be including the 'free' options).

Everyone else does the same, and the winner(s) are those that
persuaded sufficient people.

Doesn't mean we get the best 'technical' outcome (BetaMax??) but it is
what people have freely chosen.

Alan.

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

In article <h2h6ju$d2s$>, "Alan" <> wrote:
>"Bruce Sinclair" < >
>wrote in message news:4a4bf643$0$1056$ ...
>
>{Snip}

>>>Therefore, I will visit and implicitly (if not explicitly) support
>>>them by using some of those websites.
>>>People who don't like what they are doing will, presumably, boycott
>>>those sites.
>>
>> Not boycott exactly. Report the site as broken and move on would be
>> my take
>> on it.
>>
>Absolutely - they lose your business, and in doing so, you 'vote'
>against their way of doing things, compared to their competition
>(whoever that may be including the 'free' options).
>Everyone else does the same, and the winner(s) are those that
>persuaded sufficient people.
>Doesn't mean we get the best 'technical' outcome (BetaMax??) but it is
>what people have freely chosen.

Ah ... I am glad you recognise that popular <> right ... or clever. For
details, observe any government. Marketing tends to trump clever every
time.

So you are suggesting then that competition gives a 'popular' "solution" to
the market ... yes. As I always thought ... there is nothing that can't be
done better by cooperation.

"Bruce Sinclair" < >
wrote in message news:4a4c3e48$0$1058$ ...
> In article <h2h6ju$d2s$>, "Alan"
> <> wrote:
>>"Bruce Sinclair" < >
>>wrote in message
>>news:4a4bf643$0$1056$4all. se...
>>
>>{Snip}
>
>>>>Therefore, I will visit and implicitly (if not explicitly) support
>>>>them by using some of those websites.
>>>>People who don't like what they are doing will, presumably,
>>>>boycott
>>>>those sites.
>>>
>>> Not boycott exactly. Report the site as broken and move on would
>>> be
>>> my take
>>> on it.
>>>
>>Absolutely - they lose your business, and in doing so, you 'vote'
>>against their way of doing things, compared to their competition
>>(whoever that may be including the 'free' options).
>>Everyone else does the same, and the winner(s) are those that
>>persuaded sufficient people.
>>Doesn't mean we get the best 'technical' outcome (BetaMax??) but it
>>is
>>what people have freely chosen.
>
> Ah ... I am glad you recognise that popular <> right ... or clever.
> For
> details, observe any government. Marketing tends to trump clever
> every
> time.
>
> So you are suggesting then that competition gives a 'popular'
> "solution" to
> the market ... yes. As I always thought ... there is nothing that
> can't be
> done better by cooperation.
>


You're probably right.

All that remains to be seen is whether you can get sufficient numbers
of other to agree with you.

In some cases of course, sufficient numbers might be just one person.

Alan.

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

"Bruce Sinclair" < > wrote
in message news:4a4c3e48$0$1058$ ...
> Ah ... I am glad you recognise that popular <> right

!=

In article <h2hmc0$ibq$>, "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:
>"Bruce Sinclair" < > wrote
>in message news:4a4c3e48$0$1058$ ...
>> Ah ... I am glad you recognise that popular <> right
>
>!=

!= = <>