Sadly indicative of the
Sadly indicative of the impossible nature of moving web standards forwards without much wrangling and subversion to political, expedient, and down right self interested ends.
I was reading up on web forms the other day and from them HTML5.0 and it all reads really well, lots of much needed development and improvement on what we have, yet one forgets that with the whole nature of adoption, ratification we may as well just not tantalise ourselves with any thought of it being actually available to use in the real world, it's odd but really it seems a case that 'people' just don't want to see improvements, but are far happier with good old 'Tag Soup'
I read all to often now about the problems within the W3C, I'm a fan of the concept and notion of a body such as this, but think that this particular implementation of the ideal is rotten, and decision by committee is always going to prove the nonsense that it seems to be.
My vote would be for kicking out ALL browser vendors.
It isn't W3C. My reading is
It isn't W3C. My reading is they've set up on their own because they didn't like the way XHTML was going.
The whole tag soup thing is really a red herring. The requirement to fail to show a document because it doesn't validate is kind of silly. Its also doesn't really need to be part of the specification.
My impression is the XHTML got "hijacked" by one group (person?) and has has some things written into it that don't impress the browser makers. That could be why development towards the standard has kind of stalled lately.
Reading through bits of their own working draft document make me think they've gone too far the other way. Its also the lowest standard of writing I've seen in a standards document. They may bring some energy back into web development which is a good thing.
I do understand part of the problem. Rich text editing. There is a need for the web to support both the unstructured musings of those who just want to contribute something pretty as well as the more properly constructed pages of web professionals.
However, the headline members of the group are noticeable for one absentee, without whom it all means nothing. Microsoft. Much as I am sure Google, Mozilla and Opera would love to build a system for themselves, its worth nothing if its not supported by M$.
Well it is W3C to an extent
Well it is W3C to an extent now that they have set up a WG.
I'm thinking of applying to be an 'Invited Expert' sounds very easy , and would look v.cool on my C.V, then I could send emails like " Can I have tag called...."
Just my $0.02:
Just my $0.02:
In the US we have laws http://www.section508.gov/ defining the way Federal, State and public schools and universities are required to design their sites. IMO this is a damn good idea, though to date I have seen maybe a few dozen sites actually conform to the law.
Personally I pride myself on making functional designs using standards and good practices.
When ever I see sites like those listed on Adobe, (formerly Macromedia), Site of the Day, I just want to puke! Not that the design is bad but the fact that there is no accessibility or very limited and usually poorly written code. It seems to me Adobe is just boasting about how pretty the pictures and animation can be using their products.
The fact is; over 75% of homes in the US and about the same in most other developed countries have internet access. So everyone wants to get online and make a site, professionally or personally. Many of them know jack-nothing about how the Internet actually works let alone what "Standards" there are to development. Hens we see so many sites built via WSYWIG editors like Front Page, Dreamweaver or any number of other IDE's.
Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking on the above software. What I am knocking is the use of these by persons with no clue what they are doing. From what I am reading from the posted links it appears no one else seems to give a rat
mshirley wrote:From what I
From what I am reading from the posted links it appears no one else seems to give a rat
Tyssen - I think mshirley is
mshirley - In respect of this forum's regular members and the WYSIWYG situation, you are preaching to the converted
mshirley, that is the
mshirley, that is the democratic nature of the net and I don't think its right that any one be prevented from preparing content because the standard of the code behind it is is poor. As I said above, it was silly that somehow it got written into the standard that the browser should show nothing if the XHTML was invalid. That one occurrence highlights the problems in the way the standard was developing and its no wonder that those most annoyed with that (the browser builders) have started to develop their own.