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.
That's because those sites were started back when no one cared about accessibility and validation, because the browser differences were just that hard to deal with. And, CSS support was so poor, and it was impossible to do anything but write horrible CSS.
I realize this is important for you to believe, but I don't think this is why they are making those decisions. I think it's because they don't care, or rather, they don't care about things that don't result in improved performance or sales. ESPN was redone in full CSS, very decent rendering. 244 errors, html 4.01. Displays fine, is probably decently accessible.
My belief is that absolute display stability is what drives these megasite decisions, not some corporate inertia. Macromedia.com, delivers xhtml 1 if you are using standards browsers, html 4 I think if pre ie 6, zero errors, display breaks in mozilla, multiple stylesheets required to achieve this display, server side browser sniffing, reminds me of ns 4 coding days.
The larger websites know that there are problems with css, display instability issues, older slower pc display issues etc, and that it's often not worthwhile to try to build something only to have problems. Of course you're right that the web is moving towards a more standard set of coding rules, it is, that's obvious, but these large sites are making their decisions based on hardcore functionality testing is my guess, and are not willing to spend resources to achieve an end that does not necessarily have the value you believe it to.
The remaining .5% aren't worth bothering with.
You might change your mind when you have more visitors, superpower.
As for altering your site when different browsers become more popular... yes a lot of us lived through the browser wars as IE slowly encroached on the NS userbase and code tested only in one browser tended displayed very badly in the other browser. It was a drain on time and efficiency. It benefitted no-one.
You can have a situation where the responsibility falls on you, the webmaster, to make sure your code compensates for every little idiosyncrasy of each browser... or a situation where you write standards compliant code and the responsibility falls on the browser makers to display code according to the specs.
Why create extra work for yourself?
Let the consumer set the standard
How will the consumer be in the position to set the standard when the sites they most frequently visit only render well in one browser. Shouldn't the consumer have a choice?
I'm catering to 95% of my audience and attempting not to break 4.5% of the remaining browsers
That is very good! Unfortunately, there are many that do not worry about the last "five percent". Now, the reality is that IE does not have 95% of the market. It has somewhere around 80%, which is still in majority. But, that doesn't matter. The important decision to make is to cater for everyone. Don't settle for 80% (or maybe even less, depending on your audience) when you can have 99.99% usability and accessibility. And, that's where validation helps.
Now -- turning to everyone -- I'm not saying that validation is the only way to success -- far from it. But it's one way of ensuring that you haven't made any mistakes that would give your site the stamp "AMATEUR". Time and time again I run across a "major web site" telling me that I need to "upgrade" my browser to Netscape 4. That's just plain ignorance.
If you design your pages with all browsers in mind (instead of just worrying about IE) you will generally end up with a better looking, more professional site. If you don't... well, that's up to you. I'm more than willing to pick up the slack and take the visitors you turn away.
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.
Sotp why wtih HTML? Supprot I rightses mine to way-any express want I. Stnadrands no por splelling und garammer! Friedumb tou spell wish as I!
I wouldn't make assumptions about the number of users of sites I've webmastered--that's a losing cause.
You can have a situation where the responsibility falls on you, the webmaster, to make sure your code compensates for every little idiosyncrasy of each browser... (snip)....Why create extra work for yourself?
It's fairly easy to accommodate most browsers and non-validation doesn't necessarily mean the page is unrenderable or distorted. It's always been this way. Others are just ignored and those visitors go away or stop using their vintage 286 with NS1. I'm not scrounging for an extra 5 or 10 people per 10,000 users or dumbing down my site for an extremely small minority. The more visitors a site has, the more likely it will encounter user configurations that it simply is not designed for regardless of standards.
How will the consumer be in the position to set the standard when the sites they most frequently visit only render well in one browser. Shouldn't the consumer have a choice?
The user would have the choice to not go to that site. And the webmaster has the choice to change his code to accommodate the user.
Now there is talk about being a professional webmaster and adhering to W3C standards... I don't see the correlation. Yes, you should know about the standards and browser compatibility issues. But part of being an experienced webmaster is knowing when to break the rules. I've been a professional webmaster since 1995 and doubt I've ever gotten 100% validation on the entire site--and my sites have been successful. And it's not just me...
The fact is that neither most websites, nor most professional webmasters, nor the most-used browsers adhere strictly to W3C standards--and never have.
So in summary I agree: "as long as it looks good/is functional/works with the browsers I care to provide support for, screw what w3c thinks of it".
The fact is that neither most websites, nor most professional webmasters, nor the most-used browsers adhere strictly to W3C standards--and never have
...but hopefully someday will :) We don't want to always keep it that way, do we?
as long as it looks good/is functional/works with the browsers I care to provide support for, screw what w3c thinks of it
While I may be an advocate for W3C standards and sites functioning in all browsers, I still agree with that statement. The only thing that gets to me is when people don't see that those two can go hand in hand, and usually do. I have never experienced a conflict between what W3C thinks of my code, and the functionality in the most common browsers. In fact, I've been able to throw in more factors in there such as: usability, user friendliness, easier to manage and update, no unpleasant surprises when the next generation browser is released, light weight, less hacks... In the end I end up saving time and money, while making more money.
I agree -- there are times when 100% cross browser simply isn't an option. The client may have some funky requests, and I will cater to the client. But, whenever I get free hands to do whatever I want -- the site always validates, always works exactly the way I want it to work (in 99.9% of the browsers)...
Who cares about validation?! The user? Not a chance... The client? Sometimes... Search engines? Sometimes... W3C? Not a chance... Myself? All the way! I don't validate for the benefit of anyone but myself. Don't over estimate the benefit and impact validation has on your clients/search engine ranking/sales/returning visitors/whatever... But don't under estimate it either!
I wouldn't make assumptions about the number of users of sites I've webmastered--that's a losing cause.
Sure thing. Don't take that the wrong way. I have a very small site and I sure wouldn't want to lose five tenths of a percent of my visitors or give them a less usable site to work with. It is my choice to regard micro-issues on accessibility as more important than macro-issues on profit. But then I'm practically a communist, what did you expect?
The user would have the choice to not go to that site. And the webmaster has the choice to change his code to accommodate the user.
Oh come now, you know that's not a choice. Anyone would think you admire corporate monopolies.
The w3c's mandate is "to lead the web to it's full potential" not "to unquestioningly follow whatever Tim Berners-Lee dreams up". (He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty physicist ;))
So why exactly is the w3c writing-off the existing, highly-successful web in favour of one man's idea of what the web could be in a perfect world where nobody makes mistakes, lies, steals, spams or drops litter?
With no analysis, no discussion and no investigation of RW website owner/user *requirements*, all web activity at the w3c is now focused exclusively on the Semantic Web - an unproven concept, with unclear benefits and questionable practicality. And there is no plan B.
imho a "hard reboot" of the w3c is required...
why exactly is the w3c writing-off the existing, highly-successful web in favour of one man's idea of what the web could be in a perfect world where nobody makes mistakes, lies, steals, spams or drops litter
Because the existing, highly-successful web wasn't created until after the spaghetti coded HTML tag soup mess was taken off the menu ;)
W3C's recommendations may have been altered since, but remain true to the initial vision. It just happens that the browser makers thought they ruled the world, and that they could set their own standard. Hey, all major browsers are now DOM compliant! Just wait for them to be HTML or CSS compliant as well. :)
... and didn't work at all in the Opera web-browser for quite a while if I rightly recall.
Because the existing, highly-successful web wasn't created until after the spaghetti coded HTML tag soup mess was taken off the menu
This would be a very compelling argument (though still wildly-unrelated to my post) but for one small problem: it's not actually (even remotely) true, is it?
Hmm, can you use, or even spell, the words search engine?
You'll soon find a lot of comment, discussion, and analysis.
It just isn't at WebmasterWorld.
Edd Dumbill: Why has the W3C started the Semantic Web activity?Tim Berners-Lee: The W3C operates at the cutting edge, where relatively new results of research become the foundations for products. Therefore, when it comes to interoperability these results need to become standards faster than in other areas. The W3C made the decision to take the lead -- and leading-edge -- in web architecture development. src [xml.com]
Sounds to me like Mattur knows what he's talking about, as usual. The W3C is 'taking the lead', that's a dramatically different function, and strikes me as an extremely good reason to seriously question their direction, while still understanding the relative value of standards like DOM and CSS. In other words, it's possible to say, yes, those standards are worthwhile AND it's possible that others are worth questioning. Interesting comments.
then this:
Eric Miller, SW Activity Lead, certainly has his job cut out. While there are encouraging signs of a groundswell in support for RDF, it mostly has a bad name and reputation at the moment. Take this along with the confusion that XML namespaces, an underlying layer, generates (and never mind that many US programs can't even work with European Latin character sets, much less Unicode) and there are some steep slopes to climb. src [xml.com]
Plus some other major problems that aren't going to be mentioned in this kind of discussion, but which are far more real than stuff like SW, such as things like the DMCA in the US clamping down fully on all distribution of all the copywrited content something like this SW would presumably weave a logical web around. This is the problem when you start letting uber geeks start making decisions about technology I think. Not to mention that they are using the word 'ontology' completely wrong, and 10 to 1 are operating with a completely wrong understanding of how the human mind actually processes data. Too many years staring at code can seriously mess up your brain, this stuff should not be left to these kinds of people in my opinion.
one man's idea of what the web could be in a perfect world where nobody makes mistakes, lies, steals, spams or drops litter
I do not know if Tim Berners-Lee regards the world as perfect or imperfect, but I am sure that he is perfectly aware of the mentioned human fallacies and expects them to stay with us in the foreseeable future. Or do you know otherwise?
Regarding W3C I have a completely pragmatic attitude. I have just been checking a couple of websites. A few pages had an error or two. I corrected those errors which was easily done. I really could not see any reason not to do that.
Regarding W3C I have a completely pragmatic attitude. I have just been checking a couple of websites. A few pages had an error or two. I corrected those errors which was easily done. I really could not see any reason not to do that.
I as well.... I still maintain that unless one's middle name is "iconoclast" there is NO good reason not to improve one's html to whatever standards currently obtain.
AIUI the Semantic Web critically depends on reliable, accurate, author-supplied metadata. Back in the mid-to-late 90s search engines relied on author-supplied meta keywords and meta descriptions. This led to porn sites with "widgets" in their metadata appearing on SERPS for "widgets". See also Cory Doctorow's infamous Metacrap [well.com] article.
Semantic Web advocates make vague noises about "a web of trust" and digital signatures, but it appears there is no coherent strategy for dealing with the commercial realities of the Internet. ISTM the Semantic Web assumes people will put the greater good above personal advantage: a perfect world. See the Tragedy of the Commons [en.wikipedia.org]
Of course, this doesn't preclude individual organisations using Semantic Web technologies to implement accurate metadata and consistently categorised information on individual websites (Semantic Islands). But organisations can already build metadata-rich, consistently-organised, closed information systems using "old fashioned" relational databases, with optional SOAP or REST interfaces for distributed application support.
You can have a situation where the responsibility falls on you, the webmaster, to make sure your code compensates for every little idiosyncrasy of each browser... or a situation where you write standards compliant code and the responsibility falls on the browser makers to display code according to the specs.Why create extra work for yourself?
AND
Shouldn't the consumer have a choice?
That's a bit of a contradiction in my mind and is at the nub of the problem; The (typical) consumer does only use one browser - no prizes for guessin which one - and (generally) sticks with it.
Choice, is not always a good thing... far from it; it can lead to confusion... tried comparing mobile phone tariffs lately? ;¬)
Choice, has also lead us to the multi-browser testin routines we're currently burdened with today... so the onus does fall back on our (webmaster) shoulders - I can provide loads more functionality in an IE-based browser (Please, this isn't an invitation to ask for examples, go look on MSDN if anyone doesn't know), but to assuage the minority browser-makers and their users, and to comply with the standards, I have to work to the lowest common denominator - It also works the other way round, particularly with regard to CSS layouts etc...
Now, to let the '...responsibility falls on the browser makers to display code according to the specs.' (sic), is just not practical in the real world - That, for one, is handing back all the power to the browser-makers and whilst there is that choice, it'll always be a nightmare.
He who owns the market, dictates the standards, simple as... Imagine if M$ pulled away from the W3C totally?! The fact that they've iterated there'll be no further browser upgrade this side of Longhorn makes me nervous that they may decide to do just that!
Personally, I would'a been happy for them to've pulled out after they "messed" up IE 5.5 browser-compliancy as I thought it was a better interpretation (in CSS terms) than the "corrected" IE6 but we're here now and the only way of I can see of attaining a faithful across-the-board implementation is to let the W3C become the browser-engine maker.
The (typical) consumer does only use one browser
I'd be interested in any research that establishes that. And also puts an average figure on it (say 65% of all consumers use only one browser).
I only got to look around the office to see a roomful of people who use one browser 9:00 to 5:00 (ish) and then go home and use another one.
Sites they browse at lunchtime may turn into sites they buy from after dinner. But only if the site works in both browsers.
Now I've learned CSS, XHTML 1.1 and ASP, and I actually understand these languages. I now understand the only reasons not to have code which validates are (a) needing to use some browser specific function (short sighted), (b) laziness, (c) amateur or (d) the biggest reason: lack of understanding.
People who use wysiwyg editors typically do not validate. Those who are amateur do not validate. Those who don't understand what they are doing do not validate.
Professional webmasters who understand what they are doing have no problems validating. It comes naturally and without effort.
So those who say "my pages don't validate and it's on purpose and screw the w3c" are really saying "i don't have a clue what being a webmaster is all about, I am a complete amateur and I want the entire planet to know about it."
Richard
want the entire planet to know about it
I agree with all you said, except that. The thing is -- the average user does not care (see my previous post). And, as of right now, there are usually no legal requirements making validation a must. (Not that I think it will ever be...) But, there are countries where accessibility is a legal requirement (mainly in Europe... The US is a little behind). Validation is a great aid in making pages accessible. To me, validation is just one of those things you do... it's routine... just like previewing the page before pushing it live. Once it becomes routine, you will realize you no longer need to validate every single step of the way, simply because you have learned how to write HTML without the tag soup mess.
the average user does not care (see my previous post).
That's a bit of a contradiction...
I sort of see what you're getting at, but it's not a contradiction in my mind because, as far as I'm concerned, if I'm looking at a standards compliant document, whether in Safari or IE or FireFox or Opera... it should look pretty much identical. Not carbon copy, but close enough.
I'm happy for browsers to differ on what extra functions they provide, how fast their rendering method works, how small the program is etc. but they shouldn't be differing on things like where margin and padding is in the box model.
Little changes like that give a browser with a slight lead a bigger lead and a browser with a big lead market domination.
Choice is never a bad thing. I can't agree with you there >;-> I'm very happy with my mobile phone tariff - it suits my usage patterns perfectly.
But the only way that users will be able to choose a browser on the basis of what it can do, how fast it renders etc. is when sufficient numbers of pages display pretty much identically in all of them - which, I'm certain, can only happen through widespread applied practice of standards compliancy on the part of web designers and standards adherence by browser makers.
When a good percentage of documents only display sensibly in one type of browser (guess which?) there isn't much of a choice any more over which browser to use.
Just to lay my cards on the table:
I use IE 6 70% of the time for browsing / page checks.
I use Firefox for all my development and for RSS and standards compliancy / accessibility checking.
I use Opera just to do 2 second page checks.
I'd like to use Firefox all the time, but I keep getting frustrated with sites displaying oddly and have to go back to IE.
I'm happy for browsers to differ on what extra functions they provide, how fast their rendering method works, how small the program is etc. but they shouldn't be differing on things like where margin and padding is in the box model.
Amen to that, but...
It's the 'extra functions" that is the weakness in my argument/proposal, even though it's a fact already.
A lot of banks in the UK require IE browsers because of it's functionality for example - Having a situ where we have multiple browsers competing on many various unique functionalities and then them selling that on to various commercial organisations for its users to use, ie... us! You can appreciate the annoyance of being required to download numerous different browsers in order to interact with a site.
ATM, we seem to only suffer from having the (various) broswer-makers compete on "compliancy" rather than functionality. If the fight moved to challenge M$ on its functionality turf, then I don't think it would be good for us consumers ultimately.
This altogether leaves me scratching me head 'cos the whole thing is screaming, IMHO, for one body alone to control both the standards and the browser engine... but to let them also control functionality too?
No... yet if they don't we're in danger of having/building websites that require us to use function-built browsers.
It's a toughie, but one which'll have to be tackled eventually if the W3C wants to mean anything in the future.
If the fight moved to challenge M$ on its functionality turf, then I don't think it would be good for us consumers ultimately.
It just might be better for consumers, because then they would no longer be brainwashed into using only one product nor would they have to live under the restrictions (read: no freedom of choice) that may arise from this scenario. It's hard to tell at the minute because a browser is still a "new" appliance for many consumers..
The "functionality" of this appliance was there before browser wars caused someone to take the lead, and make their own rules/brand.
<my analogy 'cos I like them :)>
I didn't use a Hoover in the begining, I used a Vacuum Cleaner (Netscape), then I used a "Hoover(TM)" (M$) now I use a Dyson (like many housewives).. but I still call it a hoover ;) (choice of browser/OS is up to you here) the main thing is that it does the job (attains the standards *I* have now come to expect) it's better than any previous appliance I've worked with. More to the point is that I learnt that by using the thing, even though in the beginning I was "told" which one I should use..
</analogy end>
and gee it's not even us we're talking about here it's the next few generations who'll just need the internet to do what they want, when they want, how they want! They're not going to sit back and accept the "well here it is in this format only, deal with it" thing.. (search for "mobile phone" if you don't believe me) they will expect a minimum standard to already have been reached..
What we are seeing is the evolution of a product.. M$ may well be the "brandname(TM)" but the functionality will possibly land up being best served by someone else, and the consumers will eventually land up making a choice without even knowing they're making it ~ if the functionality people get it right, that is..
There have been louder voices than ours that tried to say something. The W3C is not the problem, indeed they may not be the solution, but someone has to set standards that actually work for "todays" requirements. Whether tomorrows generation even realise that certain standards had to be set is another matter entirely..
IMO it sure as heck is better in someone elses (non biased) hands, it shouldn't be an already monopolistic organization (unless of course I'm the one making the profit ;))
Suzy
The (typical) consumer does only use one browserI'd be interested in any research that establishes that. And also puts an average figure on it (say 65% of all consumers use only one browser).
victor (my dad's name.... he would have been 85 on Friday last....): can't give you any research as validation (erk. NO PUN INTENDED!) but I CAN tell you my own tale. I have been a computer user since 1984. I have been building my own machines since 1985. I have been an internet user since about 1988, and an ACTIVE (heh - read "voracious") net user since 1990.
I used IE of whichever version EXCLUSIVELY until a couple of months ago, after reading a few posts in these forums. Now I use Firefox. I'm NOT inflexible, though I AM old. But I'm quite enamored of new tech, and the only reason I can offer (okay - it's not a REASON, it's an EXCUSE!) for not migrating elsewhere sooner is A: entropy; and B: *shrug* IE worked fine. It was slow, it occasionally did stupid things, buy by and large it worked the way I expected it to.
I can practically guarantee that I'm fairly representative of 90% of the people on this planet who use a browser.
It just might be better for consumers, because then they would no longer be brainwashed into using only one product nor would they have to live under the restrictions (read: no freedom of choice) that may arise
Ah yes, but then we run the danger of arriving at a site and being required to download X browser in order to access it's functionality - That's already the case but thankfully most users already have it.
That said, I use CSS for layout almost all the time. In this case, though, it was so fast to put up a quick table and a bit difficult to use CSS (colspans, rowspans etc), that I said "screw it". The people who want the site would rather have a table today, than a CSS layout tomorrow or the next day.
Am I right in thinking the HTTP protocol is a product of the W3C
No, it precedes the W3C, as do most important protocols (TCP/IP, FTP) that make the internet work.
