Jump to content

Don't link to microsoft, don't support their web branding (.htm)

Recommended Posts

Nah, of course we all know Canonical, community-ignoring and manipulative, is the new Microsoft! Or maybe is Apache, attempting to dominate the server platform with their specific brand of URL rewriting? Or perhaps it's Red Hat, with their blatant commercialisation and rip-off support contracts? Open-source products may still be under the development of corporate entities, and these entities need to make money. I certainly did not know "that Novell is the M$ copycat on Linux".The point of my second-last paragraph is that they, the W3Schools authors, need to put a link in. What do they choose? Something that everyone already knows. Does everyone know where, say, http://www.postgresql.org/ leads to? Will they get confused? Will they follow the link to find out more, never to complete the tutorial? Most people already know what is behind http://www.microsoft.com/, they think nothing of it, hence, they attribute little weight to the actual text. Thereby, we have successfully trivialised the actual contents of the anchor, and people can get on with actually completing the tutorial. And it's the average reasonable person! :) (In debating the adjudicator is the ARP).Anyway, the main point of the article is that if we do care about standards, we should not fear, or hate, any entity, Microsoft included. I don't particularly "love" Microsoft, but neither do I particularly "hate" it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you do not seem to be confused about your opinion. It is one, however, that I do not share, and in particular I see no real evidence for the correlative assertions that you have made between a few pieces of text and a giant Microsoft conspiracy.Edit: W3Schools is simply a website, set up by a Norwegian family, that serves tutorials on various web-development related subjects. It also has a forum, which is this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, the main point of the article is that if we do care about standards, we should not fear, or hate, any entity, Microsoft included. I don't particularly "love" Microsoft, but neither do I particularly "hate" it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you do not seem to be confused about your opinion.
Synook, sorry for the cross post, it takes me some time editing in English (and correcting afterward). boen_robot cleared up my confusion between w3c and w3s. I probably wouldn't have open this thread at the first place, if I had known.Anyway, as said before, I would rather see promotion links to w3c along the w3s tutorials (it would make more sens, as it would also constitute a better discovery factor for the consortium, in my opinion).To the rest, the forum is very responsive. That's nice. The (sometimes humorous) answers are appreciated and I don't keep grief. Now comes the learning bit on my end.bye for now.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't wait to come back and see where this thread went while I was asleep :)

I already made an ###### of myself here, so I have nothing to lose:
that's what makes it the internet...you can always embarrass yourself more, although this time you didn't :)
I've also got to say I have a hard time taking seriously people who use "M$".
Is it wrong how much JSG cracks me up sometimes?Maybe it's my fault for not really contributing, and merely observing, but it seems like this has probably brought more attention to there being Microsoft links on this site, which tbh, I never really noticed. Or any other links for that matter. So if you support someone other than "M$" than that it is totally your opinion, but I think we'd all be better off listening to all the ideas and products the market has to offer and, in the interest of web standards, adopting as standard those things that make the web a better place, be it innerHTML or z-indexing. Personally, I'd rather spend more time helping people get off tables and using non-Strict DTD's. Edited by thescientist
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has pretty much been settled, but I just want to make one other point.

Today, absolutely. Your point would be valid if were were still in the 90's though.
Like boen pointed out, backwards compatibility has always been a concern at Microsoft. You can still see it with IE8, which needed to include a "compatibility mode" to avoid breaking all of the sites which worked in IE6. As a for-profit corporation, Microsoft has an obligation to its paying customers to make sure that they don't break something that people depend on. Canonical, Red Hat, Gnome, KDE, etc don't necessarily have the same obligation to their customers, because their customers don't pay for their software. The common responses from open source if they do something customers don't like are 1) change it yourself, 2) deal with it, or 3) use something else. Microsoft doesn't have any of those options.Aside from backward compatibility, I would also say that your own argument makes more sense in the 90s than it does today. In the 90s and for much of the previous decade Microsoft has been seen as very controlling and anti-competitive. In the last couple of years they have backed off that stance quite a bit, they are more open to the community, they are contributing to standards which other people actually agree on (such as HTML5, as opposed to something like OOXML, which Microsoft doesn't even implement correctly), and they have shown with IE that they actually are listening to the concerns of developers and users when designing their software. By the time IE9 gets released I believe we'll see it finally overtake Firefox in terms of speed and performance, the IE9 preview already beats Firefox 3.7 at Javascript performance. Microsoft is changing, sure they're still a giant for-profit corporation, but that alone doesn't make them bad. Google is also a for-profit corporation, and nearly as large as Microsoft. Apple, on the other hand, has emerged as a company that is far, far worse than anything Microsoft could have hoped to be in their monopoly days. Apple has complete control over their entire platform, down to the point of saying what software you are allowed to install and being able to remotely uninstall software or disable a device. Microsoft never even tried to have that level of control. Some might even say that the reason the internet is as popular and widely-used as it is today is because Microsoft bundled a web browser with their operating system, they gave everyone with Windows the ability to browse online. People realize the value of choice today, but in 1998 it was a different story.
I don't believe anything, I just say Unix is more respectful of standards and nomenclature and does not pretend to re-invent the well every times.
Yes, but then you criticize Microsoft for not following the Unix convention, as if it somehow deserves more weight.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...