Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Permalink for comment 545650
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-18
TBH I don't really care one way or another. I do care about people complaining about Microsoft supporting something that nobody uses and doesn't benefit their customers.
And? So you have the most popular document format in the world and they make their own competeting standard and it didn't work out well.
Why would Microsoft support such as move, I don't know.
If I made my own popular file format and someone told me I should support it and it isn't nearly as widely used, I wouldn't bother to support it either.
Why would they do that? there is no motivation to do so.
Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.
YES .NET 1.0 and 1.1 weren't great. C# != .NET.
How can something be invented to break standards? It doesn't make sense.
It like saying I am inventing PHP to break Python.
Their Java IDE was still rubbish.
I was just stating my preference.
There was nothing that was a dejure standard that everyone used.
To be honest I went down this road because of ASP.NET being open sourced recently.
TBH I don't really care about the rest.
Yes IE7 was rubbish and had no excuse to be.
when talking about standard compliance, you can't just exclude figures that disprove your point, simply because of market share. That's just a whole new level of narrow-mindedness.
Well this is what a lot of developers are currently doing on Mobile. Webkit is king and anything that isn't Webkit is a second class citizen. Like it or Lump it that the way it is.
IE8 for CSS and XHTML was fine, If you whine about SVG and other things ... these simply aren't used by web developers.
Two arbitary specifications!! Only the most important 2.
Because I rate my browsing experience on whether something can pass the ACID test.