As you would expect, I talk to a lot of people about standards, and I attend several (but not as many as I used to) conferences where new technologies and standards are discussed. Again and again it seems, I hear people trying to tell me something like "well we use this XML based grammar to solve problem X and this is really cool because now our grammar too is an open standard". This is extremely misleading. XML itself, is, of course a standard. No questions there. However, just because someone comes up with a new grammar to use in their product that happens to be built on top of XML does not make that grammar itself "automagically" an open standard. Now, don't get me wrong, it's good that people are using XML. For all the reasons that have been stated over the years (variety of XML tools, processors, stylesheets etc. etc.). However, I think it is unfortunate that people are making the connection that anything built using XML is automatically a standard. That claim should only be made, when the specific grammar in question has been taken to a recognised standards venue and taken through the process of that organization resulting in an open specification.
Kelvin Lawrence on Technology
From archive: May 2007 X
When I posted here, on April 19th, that I had upgraded from Thunderbird 1.5 to Thunderbird 2.0 I promised to post again after I had been using it for a while with additional comments. So, here is a quick update.
I use Mozilla Thunderbird, as I mentioned, primarily to read my personal e-mail as well as to track a large number of blogs and news feeds. Everything seems to be working well and thus far I have not had any major problems. I continue to be happy with it as my primary mail client for non-work e-mail and I continue to like the slightly enhanced look and feel in this version.
I have experimented a bit with the new e-mail tagging feature but to be honest have not found it that useful so far and for the most part I don't use it. I'm pretty good about filing things away into folders and keeping my in-box small and that may be why. Likewise, I have not found the new Folder Views options that useful. What I would like to see with regard to folders is more drag and drop support (see item 3 below).
There are still some features I wish had been added by now. At the top of my wish list are: