Peter wrote:

>> Also, think about defining the boundaries. Would it be legal to have
>> something non-w3c compliant on my private LAN? On a company LAN? On
>> the [...]
> 
> The key is to understand that you cannot publically give
> away/market/show/sell/allow to be consumed something that is marked,
> say 'milk', but contains water and white paint, because that could
> lead to bad things happening. 

You're barking up the wrong tree. The key for understanding my message
is to not assume that I don't understand your issue (I do), but that I
think you're not really considering the consequences of making something
like "text/html" a legally binding and enforced definition. What brings
me to this conclusion is that you snipped practically all parts of my
message that deal with the complications arising from this, and didn't
approach a single issue.

> So far the HTML 'milk' definition is pretty well handled by w3c 

That's because they don't have legal impact, and are therefore not that
prone to industry pressure. Because of that, they also can follow the
market, rather than lead it.

> There are enough big name sites that prove day by day that multimedia
> content can be created to be platform-independent. 

Nobody here doubts this, and it has nothing to do with the
(non-technical) complexities that would arise in the case "text/html"
became a legally binding and enforced definition.

> I was just looking at the Maple Leafs website yesterday and I could
> use all the media features fine using 'non Micorsoft tools', and
> there are thousands of examples. So it can be done.

We all know this, so what?

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist