Cable Forum - View Single Post - Opera's CTO responds to Bill Gate's calls for interoperabilty on the web.

Stuart · 14-02-2005, 10:50

Bill Gates has decided the only way for businesses for move forward is for software vendors to ensure their software operates correctly with other software (http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/exec...perability.asp).

Funny, certain people have been saying that (me, Richard M and other members of this forum for a start) for ages.

Reading through that article, it seems Microsoft is trying to claim credit for other people's technology working with their technology. The way I remember it is that other people (e.g. Apple & the various Linux vendors) have gone out of their way to make their technology with Microsoft, not the other way around.

I personally like the reply from Opera's CTO (another company who works hard for standardisation), which is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...rroperability/

It's also funny how the W3C page validator brings up 126 errors on Microsoft's article (above). http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...perability.asp

14-02-2005, 10:50	#1
Stuart - Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Somewhere Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone Posts: 26,546	Opera's CTO responds to Bill Gate's calls for interoperabilty on the web. Bill Gates has decided the only way for businesses for move forward is for software vendors to ensure their software operates correctly with other software (http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/exec...perability.asp). Funny, certain people have been saying that (me, Richard M and other members of this forum for a start) for ages. Reading through that article, it seems Microsoft is trying to claim credit for other people's technology working with their technology. The way I remember it is that other people (e.g. Apple & the various Linux vendors) have gone out of their way to make their technology with Microsoft, not the other way around. I personally like the reply from Opera's CTO (another company who works hard for standardisation), which is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...rroperability/ It's also funny how the W3C page validator brings up 126 errors on Microsoft's article (above). http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...perability.asp