This is not (only) Microsoft's fault. The developers that built applications that work only in broken IE6, and the institutions that bought them are even more responsible for this happening then Microsoft. They are pushing this update because it is a GOOD THING(TM) for which many web developers have been waiting for years. More secure, more standard compliant, less bugs. Most of the things that will break because of this upgrade are already broken. So stop blaming Microsoft for the incompetence of you web developers. You now get what you deserve for using websites that only work with their broken browser. Enjoy!
Google buying start-ups is nothing new, and I don't know why you are finding this to be evil. So what if they are also importing innovation (and smart people at the same time)? Is there anything evil in this? Did they ever discontinue a service they bought? Did they do any hostile take-over?
... or the same as explaining to a small child why spelling properly in English is a good thing. We al now dat pepal can andersend evan brokn Englsh quit wel, rigt?
Sorry, but for me it's so obvious why well-formed XML is better than "tag soup", that trying to explain why this is so, is like trying to explain why in C all open braces have a closing one, or why are programs type-checked before they are run. It just makes more sense this way, no matter if you are a software tool or a non-completely-brainead person. I know this does not give you the explanations you asked for, but in the original comment you only asked for examples where the the fact that XHTML being XML was "useful in an observable way". You can investigate on your own why tools like these are only possible for valid XML and not possible for "tag soup:. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
First of all sorry if you misunderstood my previous point. SOAP, RDF and OWL (and the higher layers of the cake) were supposed to be be put in contrast with more realistic things like Atom and RSS2.
If you don't know that, then I suggest you turn the lights on before you eat stuff lying around you [...]
I am now, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.
RDF is more RESTful than plain xml in many ways, since the terms in the language are URLS and so you can get their meaning. It is also very compatible with Atom. I am on the Atom Protocol list and my name is on the Atom Spec. So I know the debate well. I have a small AtomOwl ontology with XQuery transform, so you can transform andy atom document into XML. (ouch! xml. Damn people here find that too difficult! Are the people here your friends?)
Think of RDF as databases + URIs. Take a plain old vanilla mysql database, add a RDF mapping, and you can query it with sparql. I know, I have done this for the Roller Blog database. (you know, the database that publishes atom feeds)
You do this kind of stuff and it's nice, but since you are doing the standards it would be really funny if you did not eat your own... cake. However, where is the widespread industry support behind all this? And please don't tell me that some database vendors supporting XML, RDF maybe, is the same thing as the semantic web wet dream. Also don't tell me that the web becoming more semantic because of things like tagging and meshups has anything to do with the W3C dream. Ontologies vs. tagging is however a different discussion (one we can surely have).
It is targeted at groups who have valuable information to exchange in a very flexible manner. For those people, the Semantic Web is taking off. Think mashups. Think databases.
I know this is off-topic, but what about them?
Any of them using SOAP, RDF and OWL (and this is just the middle of the W3C bloated cake)?
Or they are using things like REST, RSS and Atom?
The new wave of interactive web applications might use (X)HTML and CSS, but nobody gives a fuck about the semantic dreams of the W3C. And well, why would anybody give a fuck, when their cake tastes like shit? I was eating from it for some time so trust me, it really does.
By developers I meant web developers, not people developing web browsers. However, I don't think any of them will be particularly happy of incrementally evolving standards.
They need to evangelize correctness, and the semantic web (plus other aspects) will follow naturally.
They need to evangelize correctness, and come back down from the clouds. Please don't cry, but no, the semantic web is just not going to happen. Not in the next 20 years at least. It's a big child's dream which looks like a birthday cake.
Multiple incompatible adopted versions is exactly what doomed RSS as a standard and made it an easy pray for a standard with only one version: Atom 1.0. But and at least for RSS there was not only one entity to blame for all the incompatible versions. Here there is one: the W3C.
Is W3C so blind not to see what is so obvious? Are they so deaf not to hear the million developer's voices asking for only one thing? Stability. There is no feature in this world that could somehow compensate for dooming HTML to the same faith as RSS.
It is a problem with such groups like w3c that they have a baseless belief that even something that people are satisfied with needs tampering with.
My opinion is also that is their quest to "evolve" their standards, the W3C is starting to become an obstacle for their adoption. It is evident that it is impossible to make something a true standard (adopted by the wide majority), when you make it a moving target at the same time. So the W3C should concentrate on making higher quality standards, rather than releasing poor standards often (like they do now!). "Release early, release often!" is good practice for (open source) developers, not for standard bodies!
You are right about IBM trolling here. However, IBM is a well known financial supporter of the Apache foundation and was the first big player pushing Linux. Let's not undermine their contribution to free software/open source.
... or at least written by a non-computer scientist who thinks open source is some sort of wagon. "The core platform [...] will be offered via an open source format"? "available via open source"? WTF ?
Slashdot Mirror
Java had generics since 1.5 ... they are true for me as the bits and bytes. What else do you mean by true generics?
So the JDK not being open source stopped you from using Java? Why?
German version
It's called Longhorn you ignorant!
Then upgrade with confidence. You would do us a great service if you all upgraded. Please.
This is not (only) Microsoft's fault. The developers that built applications that work only in broken IE6, and the institutions that bought them are even more responsible for this happening then Microsoft. They are pushing this update because it is a GOOD THING(TM) for which many web developers have been waiting for years. More secure, more standard compliant, less bugs. Most of the things that will break because of this upgrade are already broken. So stop blaming Microsoft for the incompetence of you web developers. You now get what you deserve for using websites that only work with their broken browser. Enjoy!
You are right, it seems to me that he is pushing the W3C in all but the right direction. I especially dislike his Semantic Wet Dreams
Google buying start-ups is nothing new, and I don't know why you are finding this to be evil. So what if they are also importing innovation (and smart people at the same time)? Is there anything evil in this? Did they ever discontinue a service they bought? Did they do any hostile take-over?
What does this have to do with anything?
Not to mention that you were only allowed to have 20 pages for free. After that you had to pay.
Great to make fun of them. But one day you might wake up in an Europe that has software patents.
... or the same as explaining to a small child why spelling properly in English is a good thing. We al now dat pepal can andersend evan brokn Englsh quit wel, rigt?
Sorry, but for me it's so obvious why well-formed XML is better than "tag soup", that trying to explain why this is so, is like trying to explain why in C all open braces have a closing one, or why are programs type-checked before they are run. It just makes more sense this way, no matter if you are a software tool or a non-completely-brainead person. I know this does not give you the explanations you asked for, but in the original comment you only asked for examples where the the fact that XHTML being XML was "useful in an observable way". You can investigate on your own why tools like these are only possible for valid XML and not possible for "tag soup:. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
What about the so called Semantic Web Services? No relation to the semantic web, right?
I am now, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.
You do this kind of stuff and it's nice, but since you are doing the standards it would be really funny if you did not eat your own
Any of them using SOAP, RDF and OWL (and this is just the middle of the W3C bloated cake)?
Or they are using things like REST, RSS and Atom?
The new wave of interactive web applications might use (X)HTML and CSS, but nobody gives a fuck about the semantic dreams of the W3C. And well, why would anybody give a fuck, when their cake tastes like shit? I was eating from it for some time so trust me, it really does.
By developers I meant web developers, not people developing web browsers. However, I don't think any of them will be particularly happy of incrementally evolving standards.
Are you talking about tools like Apache Forrest or Cocoon?
Multiple incompatible adopted versions is exactly what doomed RSS as a standard and made it an easy pray for a standard with only one version: Atom 1.0. But and at least for RSS there was not only one entity to blame for all the incompatible versions. Here there is one: the W3C.
Is W3C so blind not to see what is so obvious? Are they so deaf not to hear the million developer's voices asking for only one thing? Stability. There is no feature in this world that could somehow compensate for dooming HTML to the same faith as RSS.
You are right about IBM trolling here. However, IBM is a well known financial supporter of the Apache foundation and was the first big player pushing Linux. Let's not undermine their contribution to free software/open source.
Apache 2.0 and many other perfectly valid free software licenses are GPL incompatible. Maybe things will change with GPL v3.
... or at least written by a non-computer scientist who thinks open source is some sort of wagon. "The core platform [...] will be offered via an open source format"? "available via open source"? WTF ?
They will deliver it, don't worry. It's just not quite ready.
You are right, still Ubuntu is based on Debian GNU/Linux.