Matt Pobursky mps-design.com> writes: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:00:52 +0000 (UTC), Peter wrote: > So you would be good with those in power (whoever and wherever they may be) > selecting the "Microsoft way" as the official and legal standard? Uhh. The standards I had in mind were testing standards (accessibility and usability), not how exactly the sites are made. That is the point, i.e. if it is called html then it should pass the test of a html syntax checker like that from w3c (who make and keep the standard). Same for Javascript, css, pdf etc etc. That was what I meant. (and the same for VHS tapes that do not respect technical standards due to brain-dead copy protection schemes, same for virus laden dvds etc - if it is called XXX then there should be a standard and testing that ensures that it is XXX or else it should stop claiming to be 'compatible', and forced to do so in court if needed). Most precedents where regulators picked up a well-established de facto standard and encoded it as a standard went rather well (think about the savings in time and effort by the committees ...). Examples: Javascript/Ecmascript C->ANSI and a few more I forget now. > I think that's what Vitaly was getting at... that governments are prone to > do things just like that when given a chance (or swayed, coerced, bribed or > otherwise influenced) rather than letting those who actually know what > they're doing take care of the job in the free market. True, but see above. I think that the g's should adopt the 'meadow path' principle. This refers to the path-less communal lawns in the center of small towns which supposedly were allowed to be beaten down by horses and people and later paved on those paths, to make them into roads, which exist until today. (I wonder if non-microsoft [r] cars could be driven on microsoft [r] roads without extremely bad things happening to the cars - shudder). Peter -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist