Get back to me when IE passes a significant battery of Firefox-submitted tests. W3C is owned by Microsoft at a time when Microsoft has lost all right to call themselves a browser vendor for any purpose other than to harm the browser market.
Get back to me when IE 9 runs on any of the thousands of machines in my company, where Windows Vista/7 is a non-starter at least for the next two years. Get back to me when it is able to run on any machine I have at home. It never will. With the possible exception of Safari, every other browser tested runs everywhere required, I think.
I think "sold out" is way too harsh. I suspect ' more like they got tired of waiting for something that went from "doesn't look like it's going to happen" (but probably realized only after they'd put a fair amount of work into it) into "it will be a cold day in hell...".
Sun demanded a mobile usage restriction. Oracle is suing a company that for technical and no doubt monetary reasons went around this restriction. Oracle now can't make up with Apache without undercutting their lawsuit, even if they were so inclined, which strikes me as unlikely.
You really have the gall yourself to say that in a world where you can't as much as sing Happy Birthday to your child without violating copyright.
You would put fish into a tank with barbed or poisoned food and blame them for dying not sticking to the safe food.
You might have a point if I had a reasonable choice of not sending my children to a public school which teaches them the poisoned memes, eliminating free broadcasts of corrupt (aka copyrighted) content, etc. fighting the poison in other ways, but in America, corporatism is God, so it only works the other way, doing whatever it takes to hook our children on corrupt themes that will make money for the corporations even if free alternatives would have done just as well.
If you are going to spout naiveté, then the opposite extreme sounds more attractive. If they didn't want it copied, why did they broadcast it in the first place. If they don't publish it, then no one will "take" it.
But you want to have it both ways, on the one hand use public ideas with just a twist that you can poison with copyright and use to make money, make it popular and embed it into everyone's public spaces and minds, and on the other hand, retain tight control over what these people who have been polluted with it can do with it, when it has become part of them and their thought processes.
This is corruption, pure and simple. There should be no place for governmental policing of thought in America just to satisfy corporate greed.
New fallacy alert: appeal to brainwashing. If I recognise someone has created something I recognise it as their property and choose to only use it in line with their permission or not use it at all. If my friend plays a song he just wrote I don't turn around and sell it to the world or release it P2P against his wish. Why is it people like you always revert to the brainwashing argument whenever individual choice becomes a problem for your argument.
It may be obvious to you, but not to me so why not? If you can find a way to get it to land on earth without burning too much in the atmosphere, isn't that better than mining it in space?
The real question of the whole thing is how Microsoft could be given permanent chairmanship of the whole thing, where they have only ever had one goal in the last ten years, kill the browser however they can. They have discovered after giving it their best try to just ignore it and hope it will go away that they have to get back into the process and kill things that way. It would be far better to have a specification that goes forward without their approval than one that they make harmless enough that they can still ignore it while having negatively impacted the value of the whole thing.
There are three co-chairs currently, who are employed by Apple, IBM and Microsoft respectively. Paul Cotton, the Chair who is employed by Microsoft, has lots of standards experience, including as a former chair of the XML Query group. He's been very helpful in dealing with W3C inner workings, but has mostly stayed out of technical debates.
Notwithstanding the history of Microsoft's engagement with Web standards, I think Paul has been doing a fine job and I can't really say a word against him.
He has played that game for a while as these things just happen to be happening around him. He is a facilitator for Microsoft with respect to having their way with standards. If he avoids the technical debates, all the more reason he shouldn't be there. Yet somehow they object when whatwg characterizes a removal as being politically motivated.
