Forum Moderators: phranque
Please list reasons to support your decision for or against w3c. Here are mine:
I don't support W3C or their policies what so ever. It is also my understanding that less than 50% of webmasters agree with their technical specifications for controlling the web's infrastructure (though the percentage of members in THIS forum may not reflect that same number - we'll see). W3C has been around since 1994 and has a mere *350* members - an EXTREMELY small number given how many webmasters there are, technical organizations with a web presence, private investors available who would support their cause, etc. To me this says a lot about how people really feel about W3C. I also find it ironic that W3C, who has declared themselves the authority of web coding, has one of the suckiest-looking sites on the Internet - I mean seriously, I've seen better work from 12 year olds with GeoCities pages. At least that's my opinion on the site.
But these are only minor issues. As open as the Interent is, I am totally against any organization - governmental or private - trying to control any aspect of it. I think that the real "standards" are set by the BROWSER MANUFACTURERS, not some third party organization. Microsoft is a great example of this, as there are many things now possible on the web thanks to advances in Internet Explorer that were not possible before. Whether you happen to "like" those new features or not is relative, my point is that because independent browser manufacturers went above and beyond the "standards" set by W3C the capabilities of the web grew.
I believe that if the web had been under the full control of W3C that it would not be as functional as it is today. I also believe that if "everyone" - including browser manufacturers (specifically Microsoft) - were in compliance with W3C's standards, growth and continued development of the web would either cease to exist or an alternative would emerge.
It has been said by some that if every site were W3C compliant, the web would be changed "for the better" - while the geeks who think that having "pretty" code is more important than the final product will agree with that mindset, I think the rest of us are smart enough to realize that any organizational body that restricts/controls the freedom to innovate or go above and beyond the "standard" is an organization that should be SHUT DOWN, not supported.
How would you feel if you were told you couldn't supe up your car or build an additional room on to your house because "standards" prevented you deviating from the original specs? As an individual living in a free country I oppose any organization that infringes on my right to innovate or take what's given to me and expand upon it - W3C does this, and that's why I'm against their standards and everything they represent.
Some will say the web wouldn't be what it is today without W3C, and sure maybe I'll give you that - but their positive influence ended a long time ago. Today, WE - the webmasters and browser developers of the world - decide what direction to take the web from here, NOT W3C.
1) No single source of standards (or an unlimited number of multiple sources).
Industries and technologies without standards tend to get bogged down in factional disputes. Look at the whole RSS 1 / RSS 2 / atom fiasco. Without the W3C, or a similar steering body, getting standards propagated on the web would be as difficult as herding cats.
2) A commercial organisation which established proprietary standards.
Imagine we didn't have the W3C's world wide web... imagine we had the Macromedia Information Superhighway (TM).
Would it then even be possible to have non-compliant sites?
At least W3C, while building standards, makes standards compliance a voluntary choice.
Indeed any interest group is potentially at liberty to set themselves up as a W3C alternative. Can you imagine the same being possible if net-standards originated from Microsoft or AOL Time Warner?
[edited by: ronin at 5:49 pm (utc) on May 9, 2004]
The problem currently is 1) now all browsers display the standards the same 2) It takes much more skill to get a graphical site under the standards 3) Dreamweaver and such absolutely suck at making code in the "standard" way.
I don't have a problem will them saying that everyone should do it one way. It's like writing a book: Standards say everyone write left to right in English, its just easier than gintirw thgir ot tfel. :)
W3C has been around since 1994 and has a mere *350* members - an EXTREMELY small number given how many webmasters there are
But look at who those members are.
[w3.org...]
Including Microsoft, Mozilla Foundation, Opera, AOL, Macromedia, Adobe, AMEX, AT&T, Boeing, Nokia, Erikson, Novell...
Of course, anyone can join the W3C's public mailing lists to discuss the standards/drafts/working groups.
If you don't like the W3C, by all means publish everything only in Flash, or only in PDF, or even Word documents. At least you have a choice.
Jon.
If Bill had completely gotten away with it, it wouldn't be the World Wide Web, but the Microsoft Web.
I don't agree with all that comes out of W3C, but it is the best we have, and in general makes a far better job of it than any one company with a vested interest and an eye to put everyone else out of business would have ever done.
Not to me it wouldn't, I don't support the standardization either way. But to those of you who say it WOULD make a difference, ask yourself WHY it would make a difference. What's the difference between "Company A" setting the standards or "Company B"?
This is basically what I'm getting at and why I'm against W3C standards ... because it isn't their decision how I design my pages, it's mine. If it works in the browsers of the users I want to reach who cares whether its "compliant" with some third party standard? I don't have to limit myself to PDF or Flash, that's kind of a silly suggestion - I'm using HTML. Maybe it's not "their" HTML but it works in all of the browsers I care to support. Don't you agree that it's time the dinosaur goes away and we take the web the way we want to?
I don't mean the question to be as a "if there wasn't W3C what else would there be", I'm saying get rid of web standardization as a whole not just W3C's version of it.
If W3C was abolished, who says there has to be something to replace it? Macromedia, Real Player, etc. all did fine in their day before the standardization craze and they were third party products that people had to download extra crap to use - that's even MORE difficult than something that was already browser supported and they both pulled it off just fine.
I know I'm not alone in my thinking (though maybe I'm alone on webmasterworld heh) but I'm really getting tired of self-proclaimed "authorities" who make up standards in one area or another and we're all just supposed to be sheep and accept it.
I'm using HTML. Maybe it's not "their" HTML but it works in all of the browsers I care to support.
The W3C HTML standards define HTML. If it doesn't meet their standard, surely it isn't HTML but some SGML-ish tag soup that relies on browser error recovery tricks?
In the same way, XML (and by extension XHTML) that isn't well-formed isn't XML by definition.
Jon.
Devil's Advocate ;-)
A few examples:
leftmargin= and topmargin= in <body> tag are not "errors" they were created by the browser manufacturers. People only used those tags AFTER they were told by the browser manufacturer that it was possible - it wasn't like a bunch of people were using these tags (and getting no results from them) and the browser manufacturer said "aha, this is an error we need to correct". Yet if you specify leftmargin and topmargin in your <body> tag your page won't validate by W3C's standards.
Same goes for table backgrounds.. "background=" inside a table or cell won't validate. This again is a feature supported by all browsers, not error correction, but your page won't validate if you're using it.
Here's another one ... ALT tags. Why are ALT tags REQUIRED? What if I don't care about search engine positioning? I don't use editors, I code by hand - so that means I have type type a friggin alt tag all the time? Screw that. A page won't validate without alt tags on EVERY image.
This is the type of thing I'm talking about - yeah I know you can do the backgrounds and margin stuff through CSS, but the irony of it is that the only browsers that don't support leftmargin= and topmargin= are the same old browsers that ALSO DON'T SUPPORT CSS! So if the browser supports both, why is one way "right" and the other one "wrong"? And what's the deal with the alt tags? Who the heck cares?
I'm saying there is a clear difference between "bad code" and perfectly ACCEPTABLE code that W3C has just decided they don't feel like giving the thumbs up to.
And what's the deal with the alt tags? Who the heck cares?
No? You did say tag. You can't explain it, because there is no such thing.
There is, however, an alt attribute, so I see already that you don't follow standards, or even use the correct names for things.
We're going to have a problem when we are trying to work out if you are talking about the <title> tag or the title attribute in some other conversation.
digitalv, methinks thou doth protest too much. Is it that you don't want to spend a little time learning? Or that you're simply a (probably) young iconoclast?
How would you feel if you were told you couldn't supe up your car or build an additional room on to your house because "standards" prevented you deviating from the original specs?
I don't know about your country, but in mine, you have to have plans approved by a governing body if you want to make additions to your home. If you want to make modifications to your car it has to go through an inspection at some point and if it doesn't meet the rules and regulations set out, you can't drive your car anymore.
Why do we do these things? Minimum safety standards to make sure that nobody builds/alters/changes something to make it unsafe.
I've got mixed feelings about the W3C, but I do think that standards are important. If browser vendors want to extend the standard and break new ground by making tags that start with "bl" and rhyme with "wink", then fine. Go nuts, I won't use it but others might.
In the end, all the browser manufacturers have to do is support the standard, not be restricted by them. Even this small thing we've asked of browser manufacturers seems to be beyond their capabilities though. I think that's a real shame.
The web is a place where people are building things and doing business. You can't do that unless you have some minimal safe standards to start with. Just look at the ridiculous mess we have to go through to make certain simple (standard) things look right accross modern browsers. If you want to be on the bleeding edge and not care if you lose out on 20-30% (or more) of your potential market share that's your choice. But many of us are craving for some kind of basic rules that we can work with so that we can spend less time trying to make that box/line/font look just right and spend more time doing the things that make a real difference to our site's traffic.
Note: These experiences/opinions/conclusions are mine and work well for me, your mileage may vary :)
digitalv, methinks thou doth protest too much. Is it that you don't want to spend a little time learning? Or that you're simply a (probably) young iconoclast?
It depends on how you define "young" I guess. I'm 35 years old and have no problem learning new things, even languages. In fact right now I'm learning Sumerian Cuneiform, which as you may know is a hell of a lot more difficult than HTML :)
I assume this comment came from the fact that I started this thread based on other comments made in other threads I've participated in recently, so I can understand why you've formed that opinion. In essense I suppose you're right, I do protest a lot. But if you'll notice my posts in other threads, the underlying issue behind whatever subject I may agree or disagree with is the same:
INDIVIDUAL rights are being lost, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that our younger generation simply doesn't want to take care of themselves. They want everything to be handed to them - free school, free medical care, free this free that, government paid this, etc... they want someone else to pay for the necessities so they can spend their money on toys and crap. But that's another argument for another day ... it all leads back to the fact that there are just way too many "governing" bodies out there, whether government controlled or private organizations like W3C, that tell people what to do and how to do it. I would like to see that whole system go the way of the dinosaurs, but in order for that to happen people have to speak out against it.
The "public" opinion is clearly NOT in favor of W3C standards. This is evident by the fact that the number of pages that "validate" is INSIGNIFICANT next to the number of pages that don't, and it's not because webmasters don't know about W3C it's because they don't CARE what W3C thinks. Search Google for anti W3C-related keywords and you'll find many newsgroups, forums, etc. that back up this statement.
The problem that I've noticed though is that no one really comes out and says they're anti-W3C until a pro-W3C discussion starts. The majority would rather ignore them and move on then say something about them, which is what I've done until now. But more frequently am I seeing references to W3C and how people who don't make their pages W3C compliant are somehow doing a dis-service to their visitors. Frankly I'm tired of this attitude. One thread was even started saying Google could "make the web better" by giving a PR boost to W3C compliant sites - which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard suggested here.
The people of the world who AREN'T webmasters don't know what W3C is and don't really give a crap as long as they can get the content they want and the site works in their particular browser. I'm tired of organization after organization popping up and telling me what to do. Worse than that I'm tired of being called lazy or "unwilling to learn" because I exercise my right NOT to conform to a self-proclaimed "authority" that I don't agree with.
To do this you would have to get all the browser writers and all the companies involved together to agree on a standard.
Which sounds awfully like the W3C.
Microsoft are involved with making the HTML and CSS standards. So are Opera and Mozilla. If you disagree with the W3C's standards, these are the people to blame. If you don't like the level of support in the browsers, I assume you have complained to the browser manufacturers?
Jon.
Well it is time for them to go get an education unless they want their web site to have a potential audience of one.
If you don't like the level of support in the browsers, I assume you have complained to the browser manufacturers?
Did you read what I posted? I don't have any problem with the level of support in the browsers, I have a problem W3C not supporting all of the features that the browsers support. Why would I complain to the browser authors when my problem isn't with them?
leftmargin= and topmargin= in <body> tag are not "errors" they were created by the browser manufacturers. People only used those tags AFTER they were told by the browser manufacturer that it was possible - it wasn't like a bunch of people were using these tags (and getting no results from them) and the browser manufacturer said "aha, this is an error we need to correct". Yet if you specify leftmargin and topmargin in your <body> tag your page won't validate by W3C's standards.Same goes for table backgrounds.. "background=" inside a table or cell won't validate. This again is a feature supported by all browsers, not error correction, but your page won't validate if you're using it.
Here's another one ... ALT tags. Why are ALT tags REQUIRED? What if I don't care about search engine positioning? I don't use editors, I code by hand - so that means I have type type a friggin alt tag all the time? Screw that. A page won't validate without alt tags on EVERY image.
How would you feel if you were told you couldn't supe up your car or build an additional room on to your house because "standards" prevented you deviating from the original specs?
As an individual living in a free country I oppose any organization that infringes on my right to innovate or take what's given to me and expand upon it - W3C does this, and that's why I'm against their standards and everything they represent.
Were it not for the W3, lots of my pages I make would be unable to work, as I couldn't get them validated and fix up my mis-typings of tags.
I agree that their page is somewhat bland, and the information archetecture is just plain bad, though.
So your major point of contention is that you can’t get your pages to validate with W3C’s validators. Sounds like a stupid reason to be anti-W3C to begin with.
No ... I merely cited these as examples. I could care less if the validator thinks my pages are compliant or not, and sure I could update my site in 5 minutes to make it compliant if i wanted to since most of the non-compliant areas are in includes anyway. I simply refuse to.
Then I guess you also oppose the IEEE and any other groups whose jobs it is to establish common standards for devices to be able to communicate with each other. If we didn't have some form of standard, then we wouldn't have an internet nor a web.
What does IEEE have to do with anything? Not everything is symbolic of something else, so don't assume that because I make one statement it automatically means I'm making another one on top of it. IEEE has nothing to do with this thread, I'm talking about HTML. HTML should be defined by what the browsers support, not what a self-appointed authority thinks it should be. Lots of aspects of web design work fine, don't cause any problems, aren't wrong, are fully browser supported, etc. and W3C has decided for whatever their own reasons are not to give it the thumbs up.
I've already stated that their presence was important at one point, but it's not anymore. The groundwork was laid ... thanks ... now get out.
what if Microsoft came along and "bought" W3C... And what if they didn't change anything - if W3C was still run exactly the same as it is right now
Your proposition is ludicrous. Microsoft doesn't even follow web standards as it is. Why on earth would it go to the time, trouble and expense of buying out the W3C if it was then going to run the organisation exactly the same as it is now? Why would it continue to tolerate minimal competition from Mozilla and Opera when it has so evidently demonstrated it would like IE to be the only browser on the planet.
I'm against W3C standards ... because it isn't their decision how I design my pages
Of course it isn't. I don't think anybody, even the W3C would care to dispute this.
If it works in the browsers of the users I want to reach who cares whether its "compliant" with some third party standard?
In this case, it's the browsers which are the third party standard.
Maybe it's not "their" HTML but it works...
Well, as py9jmas so accurately pointed out... if it's not their HTML, it's not HTML. Who on earth do you think came up with the markup language?
I don't mean the question to be as a "if there wasn't W3C what else would there be"
It's unavoidable, isn't it? Either you'll get a replacement set of standards, or you get multiple sets of standards or you get an absence of standards. The latter two equate to each other and bring about near-gridlock, the former is either identical to the current situation or, if commercial, demonstrably worse.
If W3C was abolished, who says there has to be something to replace it? Macromedia, Real Player, etc. all did fine in their day before the standardization craze
You need to explain how the W3C is now preventing initiatives from companies like Macromedia and Real, digitalv. I can't see that they're doing anything of the sort.
Yet if you specify leftmargin and topmargin in your <body> tag your page won't validate by W3C's standards.
So use
body {margin-top:0; margin-left:0;}
What's the problem?
Same goes for table backgrounds..
So use
td {background: url(/myimage.gif) #ccf no-repeat top left fixed;}
or something.
For heaven's sake man - anything would think you'd fallen through a timewarp from the browser wars era.
Why are ALT tags REQUIRED? What if I don't care about search engine positioning?
What on earth have alt tags got to do with SE positioning? (I'm beginning to think this is just a one month late April fools....) What is alt short for? If you don't know, please do some reading...
the only browsers that... support leftmargin= and topmargin= are the same old browsers that ALSO DON'T SUPPORT CSS!
That's because they were made badly. You can't blame W3C for mistakes made by Netscape and MSIE. In an attempt to destroy each other, both browsers tried to have their own proprietary code supercede that of the W3C's. Do you know how much fun it was to have to write separate, browser-specific versions of each page and then use a javascript browser sniffer to serve up the right version of the page?
I'm saying there is a clear difference between "bad code" and perfectly ACCEPTABLE code that W3C has just decided they don't feel like giving the thumbs up to.
I think you don't understand the process here. HTML isn't developed by browser makers and then reviewed by the W3C... it is developed by the W3C and then implemented by the browser makers.
The "public" opinion is clearly NOT in favor of W3C standards. This is evident by the fact that the number of pages that "validate" is INSIGNIFICANT next to the number of pages that don't
That doesn't follow at all. The reason why what you've just described is the case, is because if you don't check your code, it's very, very easy to write a non-validating page. What are the chances of writing a validating page by accident?
I'm tired of organization after organization popping up and telling me what to do.
But that's the whole point. The W3C doesn't tell anyone what to do. It merely makes recommendations. It could hardly be more agreeable.
I have a problem W3C not supporting all of the features that the browsers support.
Why should it? It's the W3C that develops HTML, not the browser makers. Browser makers are entitled and do create their own standards - look, Netscape created RSS, Mozilla created XUL - but HTML belongs to the W3C.
You go on as if it's a communally owned standard which the W3C is trying to usurp ownership of. I'm not quite sure what your ultimate point is... are you saying, in a roundabout way, that XHTML / CSS spec development should be released to the open source community?
have a problem W3C not supporting all of the features that the browsers support
Oddly I actually see this as a good thing. IMHO the function of the W3C is to set a baseline standard. It is then up to the individual browser manufacturer to differentiate their product from the competition. One of the ways to do that is, of course, to add their own proprietary tags/extensions to the baseline standard. So while the W3C standard doesn't support all the features that browsers support there is innovation happening.
On the flip side I can see the problems with this. How do you gracefully transition a proprietary tag into the standard? Not easy. How do you get rid of a proprietary or obsolete tag/attribute? Almost impossible.
And these problems are exacerbated by the fact that even if my site validates perfectly it will still look different in every browser it's ever loaded into.
It can also be mentioned that if the W3C makes a recommendation that turns out to be problematic and not widely used, they will change it the next time 'round.
In earlier days, the great promise of the web was in jeopardy of compromise due to commercial warfare. The W3C had come into being at the end of 1994, but it really wasn't "in gear" fast enough. So the browser builders were innovating (and diverging) based on competition, rather than the more egalitarian principles the web hoped to support.
The W3C is not some authoritarian figure trying to enforce a heavy-duty set of rules on rebellious adolescents. Let's not even being to paint that picture.
And yes, sometimes they make a mis-step (certainly there have been some overly purist directions in recent years) - but this whole www thing is a grand experiment and the value of their service is incalculable.
You're always welcome to mark-up you documents any way you see fit and serve them up - just as you are welcome to innovate with the vocabulary and structure of a spoken language the way Wm. Shakespeare, James Joyce and E.E. Cummings did, for example. And if you are still able to communicate to your audience, then so be it.
But if you are not an innovative genius (and maybe even if you are) it's good to pay some attention to dictionaries and grammar books. It takes shared agreements for any communication to work.
And that's what the W3C is about - shared agreements, not oppressive rule enforcement.
I try to code to standards. It doesn't always work out- time pressures, making it work on all platforms, lack of knowledge all get in the way at times. But I sure as hell would like my designs to work in all future browsers.
As a programmer, I know how hard it is to design based on semi-cogent specs. Having standards means programmers spend less time on low-level functionality, and more creating new ones or making things faster. If the Mozilla team is constantly trying to figure out how IE implements things to make a reasonnable facsimile, they're not doing something else that's useful. As a result, we all lose.
Similar arguments can be made about tool support. Whether creating WISYWIG editors or speech browsers, it helps to have a standard. There are probably other applications that we could think of.
As a citizen, I don't like it when companies can dictate terms in the marketplace due to monopolistic practices. Make no mistake about it: the only alternative to the W3C is Microsoft with its Internet Explorer. Consensus decision making or monopoly, take your pick.
Finally, the point Farix made about the IEEE is spot on. Standards benefit every industry. More competition, easier decision making for purchasers, safety, lower costs... it boggles the mind that we couldn't see these benefits for the web industry.
So what if it WAS Microsoft?
Are you even aware of the things you can do with non Micro$h*t browsers like Safari, Firefox and Opera? Microsoft is not even developing ANY support for more features right now. Expect to wait years until they release a better browser. IE's dominance is the biggest chain around a web designers leg today.
I'm a fan of the idea of individual choice too, I'm not a fan of the argument that one has to write code to conform to standards, but the simple fact is I don't have to do that. What I do have to do is write code that will work in MSIE browsers, since they constitute 90-95% of the market, and I have no choice in that whatsoever. If your argument had any coherence whatsoever you would find this fact troubling, to put it mildly. I have to fix my code to make it work in IE, I have to use IE conditionals because it doesn't display consistently version to version, etc. Providing a standard coding environment is just a way to enable people to read your site internationally/ nationally/ locally. If you're such a fan of individual choice, why don't you act like it? Use Opensource stuff, that's made by individuals, for individuals. PHP was created by an individual, ASP was created by a huge corporation, one of those organizations you claim you don't want making your decisions for you. Neither do I, but unlike you I don't turn around and then contradict myself completely, I simply don't use ASP.
Given that the W3C has exactly zero control over what you put in your web pages, and that their standards are basically recommendations for the browser makers to implement and/or follow if they so choose, which they are choosing to do as a rule, it's hard to see what exactly your point is here.
Have you somehow formed the mistaken notion that the often excessively extreme enthusiasm for standards/css/div etc found in these pages somehow means that you will be forced to write to standards?
There are currently probably 4 billion+ non standards web pages in the world, don't worry, browsers will render your code no matter what method you choose to put it out. Speaking only for myself, I make my code standards compliant so I can debug it easily, and maintain it easily, and to demonstrate I can, but that's about all it means to me. CSS for styling is more powerful than <font size=3>, etc. If you like the features of MSIE, then use them, nobody is stopping you. I actually can't understand your point at all, to be honest.
I designed my whole site in IE. Then I looked at my logs a week or two later. The only ones staying were IE users, which was weird...
Download Mozilla, view my page... Realize it is unreadable. Oops.
Run validator on the page... Tons of errors, guess i was a little too asleep when coding, I'll remember to drink more coffee next time.
Rewrite closer to spec, close tags I forgot about, etc, check in mozilla... Beautiful! Check in IE: Beautiful!
IE (Bless them, whatever else you say, they recover errors well in many cases) was covering up my poor coding. Mozilla/Netscape/Everything else hated me...
Complying to standards more closely from the beginning would have made things much easier, since then I would have been more certain of my pages reading correctly, so i learned something from all of this.
Sloppy code can slip by, but it pays to have a standard to go by.
I now validate my pages any time I have doubts. I still have errors when I am done, but the browsers don't seem to notice those ones. Why can't I use DIV in all those places, anyhow? :P
1) Although 95%+ visitors are with Win/IE, there are still some visitors are using other OS and browsers. To be a profession website, it is ideal to think about each visitor.
2) To follow w3c standars is not a difficult task. And I personally think that webpages that are w3c okay are more SE friendly.
And don't think that Microsoft doesn't care about standards, they've played a key role in their existence, they just choose not to care when it comes to making their browser.
