To hell with web standards
jacobian.org
jacobian.org
Like the United Nations, though, the W3C has accomplished some of its purposes, and done a certain amount of good; but I think the author of this is expecting too much out of the W3C in a very Westphalian Web.
I hope no one turns this into an argument about the United Nations. My position on them is the same as Emperor Otto von Habsburg's on them and on the European Union: imperfect, but better than nothing. In particular, I hope no one wants to talk about which or how many countries (I count at least ten major powers plus any number of minor ones) have attempted or achieved real-world counterparts to Internet Explorer 6.
I know that using a political analogy for software is risky business, but the UN's dynamics and the W3C's are almost identical; so I hope that the insight we might gain from the analogy is worth the risk.
I think the same can be said for web standards: Half of web developers follow half the standards half the time.
No thanks.
Let's advocate for more transparency instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The innovation on the web has always begun with the code -- and always with proprietary solutions. The best of these solutions are eventually implemented by everyone and that becomes the standard. Netscape added images, tables, and plugins. IE added events on all DOM elements, xmlHttpRequest, and so on. Different browsers are now beginning to implement "HTML5" features. When all the browsers reach some level of common usefulness then W3C or WHATWG will fit their standard around what's in common usage and call it HTML5.
Having big committees make big plans has never worked for the web.
http://jwz.livejournal.com/147024.html?thread=760144#t760144
What's a "de facto standard?" It's what we call a standard.
What's a de jure standard?" It's what we call a wish.It's more like implementors (who make up most of the working group) create features, prefixed in a clear namespace e.g. -o, -webkit, -moz, etc. and then submit proposals for these features which are reviewed and reviewed, become standardized, and everyone implements the agreed upon solution.
It is absolutely critical that these features go through this open process and are well documented. What you are describing is more akin to the Netscape - IE browser wars, which was terrible.
Minor correction: lots of innovation has taken place in open source implementations first, which aren't proprietary.
Seriously I thought we were trying to do it right this time so that the 'net could move on and browsers could differentiate on features not on whether they bother to implement the standards properly.
The whole reason for the creation of the WHATWG was that the W3C was getting absolutely nowhere with HTML standards (XHTML 2, anyone?) and the browser vendors that were actually still improving browsers and adding features decided to get together to create a separate standards body that would standardize on features that people actually want.
Eventually, the W3C realized that WHATWG was stealing all of their thunder, and agreed to adopt the WHATWG Web Apps 1.0 spec as the basis for HTML5, and agreed to some concessions about a more open process and a somewhat different structure from the usual W3C body that heavily favors big corporations which can devote people full time to creating baroque standards instead of actually implementing anything.
Sadly, it's looking like the W3C group is starting to devolve into the old behaviors that killed it in the first place, with confusing private lists, with decisions being made in face-to-face meetings and teleconferences that favor professional standards people instead of actual implementors and users.
Luckily, the WHATWG still exists, and still retains the option of just going off and doing its own thing again if the W3C gets out of hand. I don't believe that it will come to that, but it can if it needs to.
Just wanted to clarify, since the way you phrased your comment made it sound like this was a WHATWG issue, while in fact it was a W3C issue.
I think it's a shame the title is incorrect and/or flamebait as the points are otherwise valid/interesting
However, the lack of any substance whatsoever to the argument makes me pull back on that slack.
Just what points are valid and interesting?
I'm using HTML5 and CSS3 today, and it doesn't matter that the vendors can't agree on everything or that Microsoft refuses to implement features. We shouldn't stop trying to push forward, but we shouldn't forget how bad things were even just a few years ago. Modern web development is here, and it's awesome.
And that right there is the reason his standards may and probably do differ from them.
HTML5 features are a wonderful example. If I'm targeting the iPhone, the new location API is a goldmine, but otherwise it's meaningless (for now) because 50%+ of my audience (IE/Opera) doesn't support it. I know I need to build in a good fallback anyway, but the point is that the standard only matters insomuch as it's actually implemented.
One look at the different local storage/web storage implementations bears this out.
I don't really care if W3C argues itself into oblivion if the browsers leapfrog them and implement something useful (see: canvas/iecanvas).
If the browsers are outrunning the standards by a significant margin, rendering the standards irrelevant, then the process is broken.
</rant>
If you believe in accessibility over all else, following standards set by this group are essential.
Light thin grey serif font on white background.
Open standards are good for all of us. Proprietary systems only ever benefit those who own and control them. The W3C is a fallible, flawed organisation performing an utterly sisyphean task and I think we should give credit where credit is due.
In an ideal world, the perfect standards for everything would just magic themselves out of thin air. Unfortunately, we live in a world where big organisations have commercial interests in manipulating and controlling technology to their own ends. We should celebrate that we still have a mostly open web and thank the W3C for getting things done against all odds.
I'm all for a freer, more open approach to web standards, but I understand that realpolitik is a necessary evil. I'm just really happy that I can't remember the last time I saw the words "best viewed on browser x". Those of us who remember using early versions of Firefox are well aware of just how much progress has been made in standards-compliance. If the W3C is becoming unfit for purpose then that's a damned shame, but we shouldn't throw the baby out of the bathwater. Web standards matter, they are the essence of what the web is. I shudder at the thought of returning to the bad old days of <multicol>, <marquee> and ActiveX controls.