From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Rich wrote:
>
>
>     "Adam"      > wrote in message
>     news:4340f3ca{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>     Ummmmmm we are trying to design for the long term.
>
>
>
> That's good.  Too bad your mandate is not that but instead something
> specific that according to you does not exist.  Worse still, something
> you aren't building.
>

Rich you are a complete tit. You have no idea what I'm doing & yes I'm
building. So nice of you to reveal your complete ignorance so fully.

>
>     Can you imagine MS even pretending to plan to have a tech which will be
>     "current" 8-12 years from now?
>
>
> We have you pretending.

Nope we have you projecting again. No idea why other than to mask MS's
complete abscence of any way of comprehending what is going on now in
public IT as your old model is irretreivably broken.

> "Current" is full of fads.

Oh indeed which is why we are sticking to W3C stds & not crappy fake
stds put out by single vendors.

>  My suggestion to
> you if you don't want to be in exactly the position that you claim to
> fear is to not tie yourself to a specific format.
>

A) Text
B) XML
C) W3C or other open standards organization where such a standard is free
of vendor claims.

Get used to it & try to go there yourself or see more Massachusetts
type decisions.


It's going to happen anyway Rich now stop being such a tit.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5