|
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
I could argue that no standards written by a third part are needed for the success of a said software.
|
And I would disagree and so would history. David Wheeler illustrated the argument for standards at a conference ..
| quote: |
He went on to show the audience, through another word picture describing a 1904 fire in Baltimore, how open standards can prevent unhealthy dependence on one vendor. "Firefighters were called in from all the surrounding states," Wheeler said. "But all they could do was stand and watch the building burn, because their firehoses would not fit on the fire hydrants." A standard fire hose coupler could have prevented much of the destruction.
|
| quote: |
a great example is directx, set forward by one company, it succeded because it just worked.
or Java, there's no standards that put it in place... and now its widespread. |
I don't know, directx is an example of success? for who? Microsoft's pocket maybe. Directx actually illustarates part of my point since as a user I'm forced to use windows to run most games because directx is the defacto standard for game programming and most games require it. Now thankfully directx mainly deals with computer games. It would be a more serious issue if something more important like the web was controlled the way directx is. And about Java, some may see it as more open than not (JCP), in addition to the fact that several of the technologies Java uses are actually open standard and not to mention the fact that Sun is contantly playing with the idea of formalizing Java's "openness"
| quote: |
if it worked like you're implying, then Microsoft and Mozilla/firefox would interpret w3c guidlines the same way since both are part of it, but thats not the case.
|
But they do follow the guildelines, they may not follow it perfectly but at least both browsers know what to do when they see a <font> tag. If there weren't any standards they would each have their way of doing things, developers would either need to code for all those different ways or wait until one of them controls the defacto standard.
| quote: |
standards are just a piece of paper with some abstracts, nothing more.
implementations are the real world, where products succeed (IE) and others fail (the rest) as seen with their market shares.
|
lol, standards are more than just a piece of paper! The whole internet is built on standards! HTML, TCP/IP, GSM, PCI , XMPP, CSS, etc. We use them every day. I think you will agree that we'd be in a whole different boat had a single corporation controlled the underlaying foundations of the technologies you and i are using to post these messages. And besides, the reason "the rest" have a smaller market share is not because they follow the standard. It's because of the monopoly on which IE is launched (a whole different topic) and shoved down everyone's throat. The masses are ignorant there is choice. Do you really think IE's market share would be as huge had it not been for Windows being installed in over 90% of desktops out there?
Blah, lol .. We could argue until the cows came home and for every "successful" defacto standard you mention, I could mention a whole bunch of successful open standards as well. There are valid points as well as pros and cons to both sides. That is reason why this is such an active topic of discussion in the industry. I don't know, as a developer who has experienced both sides, I'm more inclined to agree with openness but what do i know, im just a linux hippie 
I mean fuck.. imagine Toronto was the defacto standard capital of Canada, how much would _you_ like that! 
___________________
[alk]
Last edited by loconet on Apr-27-2006 at 02:53
|