also sprach Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org> [2009.08.06.1104 +0200]:
> You're comparing apples and oranges here, for HTML is a standard,
> and theoretically, following the standard is enough (and even that
> is probably -- and sadly -- a fallacy).
LSB is growing to be just that, but it won't stand a chance if
people/distros don't work with it.
> When it comes to the LSB, it doesn't say what happens when you're
> using very specific bits of the Linux kernel or the GNU libc, and
> when you're doing networking stuff for example, well, that matters
> a lot. That's why LSB doesn't work for many vendors because of
> the very different toolchains.
I am failing to accept that vendors need to use those very specific
things in their software, just like I doubt that people need IE-HTML
to make their sites render properly. I think laziness^W business
thinking is more likely an option.
Anyway, if there is something that should be standardised, well,
bring it up to the LSB. The W3C and web-standards groups didn't
suggest to synchronise the rendering engines between all browsers.
They defined standards. I think that's what we ought to do too.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> Related projects:
: :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"this sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't."
-- douglas hofstadter
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)