Forum Moderators: open
<long rant>I have had websites on the internet for more than a decade. But - and this is an important piece of background information - at heart I'm a writer, or at most a designer of useful facilities, not a programmer. The internet, servers, technology, PHP, html etc. are all means to an end. The 'end' is to share - whether it be information, experiences, opinions, conflicts, etc.. The technology enables us to do sharing, of many, many types of information, from plain text to video to experiences to workspace to whatever.
During the last 6 months we embarked on a project to update our old (html) websites and drag them (literally) into the 21st century. We have been bringing them into line with the standards that operate now, rather than those in place when we started out. It seemed a noble thing to do, for the benefit of people who are kind enough to visit and read our websites.
It has turned out to be one of the most frustrating projects I have ever worked on. And I've worked on a lot over the last three decades.
We don't have complicated websites. Most of our content is text. We are 'web 1.0' through and through, using html with the occasional bit of functionality thrown in (smatterings of javascript and php). But making simple, plain text appear nicely on our website, using W3C standards, has proved infuriatingly difficult.
The problems are many.
One example is that when we developed a page that 'validates' using the W3C validator, we couldn't see anything on the page. For more than 10 years it has shown us text - we bring it up to date and all the text disappears.
So, we tweak it to try and make the text appear and, after a lot of experimentation, we finally get our text back. But, for some unknown reason, in IE7 it jumps off to the right of the screen, but displays correctly in Firefox. So, we tweak it some more so it displays correctly in Firefox - hooray, but then it jumps off the right of the screen in IE7. All these combinations are "valid" according to W3C.
In the end, we manage to find out how to fix it. If you are a Hancock or Mr Bean fan, it is reminiscent of their sketches trying to position the TV arial to get a good picture: to get it working, you end up doing something that is very inconvenient and looks stupid.
But, we do eventually get IE7, Firefox, Netscape and a pda browser all showing us the text. But then we get a complaint from a site visitor that in IE6 the text has jumped off the bottom of the page.
To help in our migration to the 'new age', we have upgraded our computers to IE7, and Microsoft in their wisdom didn't let us have IE6 running alongside IE7. So we had to get an old computer to view the reported problem in IE6.
This turned out to be another journey into things like quirks mode, whether padding is added to the width of an element, and many other differences between the way browsers work. For some problems we encountered, web searches revealed lots of forum pages asking how the problem can be solved, and no pages (that we could find) saying how to solve it.
And it's not just IE. For example, insert a "<br>" between divs and we expect some whitespace to appear. But Firefox will do something different to Netscape, depending on the css settings for the divs above and below.
Looking at the W3 pages, I guess the people involved would claim that the aim of their standards is to remove problems like this, and we are just in a transitional phase. By having clear, agreed rules, then if one follows the rules then you'll always get the same result.
But the direction they are taking is, imho, not going to "lead the Web to its full potential" (as is claimed on the W3 home page). It is going to restrict the web's potential, making development accessible only to an elite who think in a particular way.
If I may use an analogy, it is a bit like saying that, in real life, everyone in future has to communicate using semaphore. There might be some benefits in doing this, having one set of clear rules, but there are plenty more drawbacks. Such a restriction on language would obviously be a massive inhibition to creativity and artistic expression, and it would be unworkable for most of us, apart from the few ('elite') members of society who understand semaphore.
The aim of W3C seems to be to agree common standards. Whilst this may seem laudable, it has become so logic- and rule-driven that it is becoming exclusive. It may end up being the internet-Esperanto.
Please pardon my excursion into soapbox territory, but it is very often the case that people who design do not think logically, and people who think logically do not make good designers. Design is about the aesthetic appearance and appeal, the subjective experience of the user, the visual impact, the overall experience, providing an outlet for artistic talent.
But, with W3C, the designer is frustratingly not allowed to concentrate on those things. One ends up wasting a great deal of time, and getting frustrated, because basic tasks such as centring text on a page can't be done. Or, at least, not easily. One can't just say "<center>" any more. Even "text-align:center;" in the css doesn't always work. To center text on a page, one has to understand a whole new complicated set of rules, about inline or block display, about the different effects of text-align:center and margin:auto.
If you want to tell your wife you love her, you can't buy her flowers any more. You have to lie on the floor facing north, with your right hand pointing south-west and your left arm bent, and pointing within 30 degrees of the moon. Other enthusiasts will know exactly what you mean, but your wife will think you've gone crackers.
Why am I writing this? Well, it is largely a rant and a rave. I have a piece of text around which I want to have some white space, but I've got another fight on my hands. The browsers seem determined not to let me have my white space, and it's the straw that broke the camel's back.
If anyone in this list is involved with developing W3C standards, please remember that semaphore users make up a tiny proportion of the population. To enable the web realise its full potential, the standards have to be intuitive and easy to use - "ease of use" is a phrase used aplenty on the w3 website, but not what I experience in practice.
I'm not saying the rules shouldn't be logical and provide consistency. But I am saying that they should also support the thinking of the person who has a design mentality, and not provide a constant source of frustration.
Bring back the quill pen. Long live html!</long rant>
center{
text-align:left;
}
?
yuck
We do use layout to express some forms of content, and will continue to do so. For example, positioned properly in a grid, a white space can convey a message much more powerfully than a paragraph or page of text. If CSS isn't meant to provide dynamic control over layout then, yes, we are using it badly. And our use of it in future will get worse, because what we are doing is outside the discrete boxes of content or layout.
But my judgement, supported by the feedback we get from site users and site growth, is that we are providing useful content/facilities and a genuinely better user experience, not just some superficial whizz-bang effect that adds no real value. It would be difficult for us to adopt the principle of clear demarcation between content and layout without a severe drop in usability and quality.
With regards the centering issue, what you appear to be saying is that it would be OK to put:
<p class="center">
in a document with:
.center {text-align: center;}
<center>
in a document with:
center {text-align: center;}
in the css.
I can't see much difference between the two, except one is easier to read in the document.
1. Text = content
2. Style the text - fonts, color, bold, white space.....
Styles are helpful because you can make a change in a style and it will apply throughout the document.
I can't see much difference between the two, except one is easier to read in the document.
<center> is deprecated and has been for quite some time. That's the difference between the two.
.tac{
text-align:center;
}[center]<p class="tac">Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.</p>[/center]
But, we do eventually get IE7, Firefox, Netscape and a pda browser all showing us the text. But then we get a complaint from a site visitor that in IE6 the text has jumped off the bottom of the page.
It sure sounds like you're in the same boat with many others here. The layout is over-complicated. This is a common trait I see amongst many. Pad this, clear that, hack this, put a margin there, but not here, etc.
I've always found that if it causes a problem in one or the other major browsers, then I probably didn't do it right. Or, I could do it a better way and avoid the CSS that is causing the problem, which is the route I usually prefer to take. And its worked quite well.
Multi column fluid layouts seem to be the bane of every designer. Usually when there are problems, the "fluid" aspect is at the forefront of the discussion. We're lucky that the browser manufacturers allow us to throw some of the stuff that we do at them. ;)
<center> is deprecated and has been for quite some time. That's the difference between the two.
Yes, that was actually the point I was making. The only differences between them are (a) the decision to deprecate <center> and (b) the fact that <p class="tac"> (or whatever) isn't as user-friendly or meaningful to the non-expert reader.
CSS is like using styles in MS Word
That usefully highlights one of the issues. MS Word and styles lend themselves to certain types of document and not others, such as brainmaps, Excel charts, etc.. Likewise, W3C seems to enable some types of documents much better than others.
The layout is over-complicated.
From the user perspective, the layout is simple, elegant and conveys a powerful message. It may be complicated from a technical point of view, but I prefer to look at things from the user standpoint.
Or, I could do it a better way and avoid the CSS that is causing the problem, which is the route I usually prefer to take. And its worked quite well.
If you avoid the CSS, how do you ensure interoperability and compatibility with future versions of the browsers?
If CSS isn't meant to provide dynamic control over layout then, yes, we are using it badly. And our use of it in future will get worse, because what we are doing is outside the discrete boxes of content or layout
Not exactly sure what you mean by that but you have much more control that you would with basic HTML, specifically using positioning and z-index.
Try this:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
.box1{
margin: auto;
width: 150px;
height: 150px;
background: #008000;
}
.box2{
position:relative;
top: 100px;
left: 100px;
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
background: #FF0000;
z-index: -1
}
.box3{
position:relative;
top: 150px;
left: -150px;
width: 300px;
height: 300px;
background: #0000FF;
}</style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div class="box1">
<div class="box2">
<div class="box3">
<p>Think outside of the box :)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
[edited by: thecoalman at 1:55 pm (utc) on June 25, 2007]
If CSS isn't meant to provide dynamic control over layout then, yes, we are using it badly.
It sounds as though you are indeed using it badly even though CSS IS meant to provide control over layout.
If you do the right thing in the wrong place you're using the tool badly no matter how much you protest.
The only differences between them are
Wrong. Your understanding of the differences leaves out aspects of major importance.
I'd be willing to bet that if you (and many others) weren't stuck with your personal legacy of having learned things like <center> first, you'd have a lot less trouble grasping how CSS works and understanding how to harness its power.
[edited by: buckworks at 1:46 pm (utc) on June 25, 2007]
Or, I could do it a better way and avoid the CSS that is causing the problem.
If you avoid the CSS, how do you ensure interoperability and compatibility with future versions of the browsers?
No, I avoid the CSS that is causing the problem. I'm fortunate in that 95% of the sites I manage, I built from the ground up (oh-oh). During that development, we may have run into certain bugs between browsers. At that point, we look at the challenge and then implement a better solution using another method of CSS.
You see, there are many different ways to use CSS and achieve similar or same layouts. One of them has to be the right way, eh? As they say, "there are many different ways to skin a website." :)
Try this:
Nice illustration. This is almost exactly what we want to achieve in some cases. We do already use z-index and positioning, and even overlay simple graphics in some cases to change the shape where we want something other than a box, but our code isn't as neat as yours, which is a nice example.
Having said that, though, even the complexity of your code puts it well beyond the scope of all of our authors. Just positioning a short piece of text in a grid requires getting to grips with some (complex-for-them) syntax.
Wrong. Your understanding of the differences leaves out aspects of major importance..
What aspects of major importance?
I'd be willing to bet that if you (and many others) weren't stuck with your personal legacy
My "personal legacy" is to be focused on things like the visitor experience, usability of the facilities, quality of the content, simplicity of presentation, etc.. If that makes it difficult for me to grasp css and I use it badly as a result then I choose to do that rather than compromise the user experience.
we look at the challenge and then implement a better solution using another method of CSS.
OK, that makes sense. That does require a lot of knowledge/experience of CSS, though.
Just positioning a short piece of text in a grid requires getting to grips with some (complex-for-them) syntax.
Why are you making your authors learn how to position a piece of text in a grid? Why aren't you simply making a class for that styling in your house stylesheet that they could apply in one step?
Better yet, use contextual selectors and for many elements the authors wouldn't need to worry at all about applying styling info (unless they wanted to override yours).
My "personal legacy" is to be focused on things like the visitor experience ...
That's changing the subject, you're switching from apples to oranges. There's usually more than one way to give the visitor the same experience but sometimes one way of achieving it has significant advantages "under the hood". This is about what's under the hood!
puts it well beyond the scope of all of our authors.
Sounds to me is what you need is CMS, or some form of one. If you're having a lot of people creating content that have no clue how to code and format a document correctly that's certainly the way to go.
OK, that makes sense. That does require a lot of knowledge/experience of CSS, though.
Nah, I've been working with it from the other perspective. Keep It Simple first, then bring in whatever complexities that I absolutely have to. I look at some sites designed using CSS and wonder "how the heck did they do that?" Or, "why did they do it that way?" I see a lot of table concepts within CSS. For example, nesting. Whew, I've seen <div>s nested 5, 6, 10 levels, what's up with that?
I try to keep all styling within the core elements. Create a few containing <div>s and off we go. Add a little graphic flare, some CSS wow and you've got a solid foundation to work with.
Too many are trying to use that whole <table> concept when working with CSS. Columns everywhere, rows, nested elements, more nested elements, etc. I look at it this way, for each <div> that I add to the structure, that's one more piece of website that needs to be managed. Why put everything here...
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
When it can just as easily be here...
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
And then within those <div>s is where you do all your styling. That way, when that page is stripped of all markup, things are flowing in a natural way and in nice semantic chunks of data.
A rant and a rave about the implementation of W3C standards.
We have these all the time at WebmasterWorld. :)
Sounds to me is what you need is CMS, or some form of one. If you're having a lot of people creating content that have no clue how to code and format a document correctly that's certainly the way to go.
We've got one, that's part of the major change we have been making. It only allows for a limited range of markup text, which can be inserted by highlighting the relevant text. This will be fine for a lot of the content, but as I've said I'm wanting to be more creative than that will allow, particularly given the success of some of our other developments. And I am starting from the user end of things, not the technology. Some of our site content, including some of our most popular pages, originated in things like powerpoint - just a few images and text arranged nicely on a screen.
That's changing the subject, you're switching from apples to oranges... This is about what's under the hood!
No it's not changing the subject, that is my central point. What's under the hood does not drive the car, the car driver drives the car. This is about the person behind the wheel, and where he/she wants to go, the driving experience. If W3C is about what is under the hood, then it is going in the wrong direction.
Somehow I think I am looking at this from a completely different perspective from everyone else in the forum, and never the twain shall meet.
This is about the person behind the wheel, and where he/she wants to go, the driving experience.
In your picture, what is the responsibility of the driver for learning proper driving techniques and what differerent road signs mean?
In your picture, what is the responsibility of the driver for learning proper driving techniques and what differerent road signs mean?
It is about the same as the car designer's responsibility to recognise that not everyone wants or has the capability to drive on the superhighway. There are other roads, which is in fact where the majority of journeys take place.
Once you begin with the document content and semantics, then apply presentation, you will reach an epiphany. You will find, in fact, many things that you would never have thought of before in terms of presentation.
Think of it in terms of an airbrush or oil artist making their first step in watercolors. Water has a mind of it's own, at first you try to force the water to act like oils or airbrush. When you finally let the water speak, and react to it, you're in a creative conversation.
This is where you are, the W3C standards are your watercolor.
My take is that clean, semantic markup free from hardcoded style properties is much more elegant than hard-coding elements of style into the document which subsequently have to be located and changed, one by one.
I stopped using things like <center> and <br> <br> in my code back in 2003 when I started to learn and properly implement separation of style and structure and realised that a web page is not a two dimensional desktop publishing surface but a simple description of the informational elements within a document.
CSS-P allows us far more positioning options than HTML alone ever did. CSS also allows for much more straightforward coding.
Who would ever choose:
<center><big><b><i><font color="#FF0000" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">My Right Column Section Title</font></i></b></big></center><br> <br>
over
<h2>My Right Column Section Title</h2>
and then describing the properties in an external stylesheet:
#commentary h2 {font-size:2em; color:#f00; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:center; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; margin:1em auto 2em;}
I don't feel that the second method is more obscure or arcane than the first method - and certainly it makes all subsequent editing and updating a lot more straightforward.
Why is <center> deprecated?
Answer: Because it contains "presentation" embedded in the markup, and from a development and maintainence point of view, it's better to separate your presentation layer from your content layer.
Here's an example. Suppose you have 100 pages that each contain this general structure:
<center><p>...</p></center>
Now suppose you later decide you want all of those paragraphs to be left aligned. I suppose you could try styling the center element to be left aligned, but that will be confusing to the next guy that tries to maintain the site:
center { text-align: left; }
As mentioned earlier, this is poor design.
So then the alternative would be to modify all of your pages to no longer include the <center> element. Now, since centering is presentation, you should be able to make this change in the presentation layer only (your CSS) without having to touch 100 pages of markup.
So, while it might be easier for you and your co-workers to put a <center> in your content in the short term, it will not be easier in the long term.
It sounds like you case might be somewhat unique in that the "content" of the site might be somehow directly related to the "visual presentation" of the site. In other words, it's probably not going to make much sense to users with screen readers or other assisted browsing devices, and the visual representation of the site is going to have some direct bearing on how the content is interpreted by the end user. Even so, there's no reason that you can't maintain those layers individually instead of trying to create a hodge-podge of tag soup.
The fact that the majority of people are siding against you should be some indication that perhaps the real problem lies with you, and not with the W3C.
It seems like you are still working it backwards
You probably won't be surprised when I say that I think I'm working it forwards, from an ergonomic standpoint. Requiring the type of demarcation you describe is one way of working, but not the only way, and it only fits with one of the many styles of thinking.
Ronin's example is interesting, because this shows how unergonomic the old technology can be, I agree. But the fact that the new technology is different and forces you down a disciplined track doesn't necessarily mean it's better. In fact, tracks limit the destinations you can go to (which is why train travel was superceded by the car forty or so years ago).
The place to start is with the way that people work and think, the way that they are creative or absorb information.
Eg: the way that some people work or think best is by putting things down on brainmaps. By visually reviewing what they have put, they develop and improve their ideas. I just used a bold and italic markup (for the above text) and reviewed it on the screen to see if it conveys the message I want to convey. The bold was too strong, so I removed it. Some of our authors do this: they put up articles to see, in the browser, what they look like from the surfer perspective, and then modify them.
I'm not exactly being revolutionary when I say we should start with the human and not let technology dictate how the user works.
For example, in my ideal world I would want the ability to draw lines and arrows between pieces of text that I place on the screen. Eg:
<place 27,30>Action
<arrow 27,30 to 45,60>
<place 45,60>Reaction
Another example would be to draw words in an arc of text:
<place arc 27,30 thru 35,60 to 45,30>An overarching principle
<place 27,30>The foundations
In the end, any good solution is going to have to balance the tension between user and technical requirements. But at the moment it seems that the tug o war only has one side pulling the rope.
I, like most everyone here, think you have missed the point.
Tedster's link ... does partly explain why we have had difficulty implementing some of our pages.
We do use layout to express some forms of content, and will continue to do so
CSS is like using styles in MS Word or Indesign
jessejump - #msg3378084 [webmasterworld.com]
It seems that you have overlooked that pearl... I suggest you revisit it and consider the relevance to your problem
The sooner you acknowledge that you have tackled the task from a (excuse the bluntness here) completely misguided/misinformed perspective, the sooner you'll realise that the most beneficial (time/money/fun... remember when it was fun?) approach will be to start from scratch
The idea that the process can be 'ad-infinitum' is often daunting - and it will be if the core design is rigid. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that if there is in-built flexibility, the process does not have to be 'ad-nauseum' - rather it can be quite rewarding :)
But the fact that the new technology is different and forces you down a disciplined track doesn't necessarily mean it's better. In fact, tracks limit the destinations you can go to (which is why train travel was superceded by the car forty or so years ago).
Another post you seem to have overlooked was one of mine, #msg3377652 [webmasterworld.com], where I listed the various media types supported by CSS
I posted them to bring to your attention that CSS is not only inherently ('scuse the pun) flexible but also designed, from the outset, to accommodate 'future developments'. So rather than FORCING you down one track, CSS creates a whirled of opprtunities where there are (potentially) innumerable tracks all delivering essentially the same content in a wide variety of media
It would be difficult for us to adopt the principle of clear demarcation between content and layout without a severe drop in usability and quality.
True. And the longer you postpone it, the more difficult and costly it will be to rectify - assuming that one day you do will want to realise the full potential of the medium you are using
You probably won't be surprised when I say that I think I'm working it forwards, from an ergonomic standpoint
You are evidently articulate and intelligent, so I am surprised that you are so reluctant to accept the well-intentioned advice (from several people who know what they're talking about) that your current approach to http, www, html and css, is a complete and utter waste of your talents
I'm not exactly being revolutionary when I say we should start with the human and not let technology dictate how the user works
Revolutionary?
No.
Impying nonsense?
Yes. No one here has, as far as I can tell, even come close to advocating that technology should dicate anything. On the contrary, many posts have been made to highlight that the technology you seem to use yet despise can, if you ever use it properly, allow you to dictate the presentation of your content - in a variety of media
Mind you.. at the outset you did describe this thread as "A rant and a rave about the implementation of W3C standards"... so fair enuff, can't fault you on the false-advertising front ;)
[edited by: tedster at 11:47 pm (utc) on June 25, 2007]
[edit reason] fix bad link [/edit]
The separation of content and style is a very important step for now, and even moreso for the future. Every browser I know of still renders deprecated markup appropriately, so using a <center> tag won't break a page's look... today.
For reference, we have a thread from 5 years ago
that covers the tags and attributes that were
designated as deprecated in HTML 4
[webmasterworld.com...]
At that time, simplicity and "intuitive" human factors had introduced limitations that were clearly going to handicap the fullest expansion and flexibility of the web.
Do you have a link to a discussion or list of what these factors & limitations were?
<p class="center">21_blue, the reason you don't see much of a difference between <center> and <p class="center"> is because there isn't one. They are both equally bad.
Like the actual tag, class names are supposed to convey semantic meaning. "red", "center", "x45j12" are all bad class names. Good class names would be things like "advertisement" or "section". Similarly, you want to make use of good ids, such as "header", "footer", or "navigation".
Tags, classes, and ids (you know, HTML) are meant to say what a thing is. CSS is then used to say how those things look.
You said you are conveying meaning by certain modes of formatting. Stop for a moment and think "What am I trying to convey with this formatting?". That is your class name. Maybe one type of formatting you are saying "this is important" (class 'important'), maybe with another you are saying "this is dangerous" (class 'danger'). Maybe sometimes you want to say both at once--fortunately, class is a space-separated list of names, so you can say
class="danger important"Other questions you might ask yourself:
Certainly HTML has problems, as does CSS.* Separating intent from presentation probably isn't one of them.
On the other hand, the only point being helped by this board's pitiful use of UBB style codes is yours. :)
* Not the least of which is having large, complicated, intricate specifications hardly anyone has ever wholly read through and even fewer comprehend.
21_blue, the reason you don't see much of a difference between <center> and <p class="center"> is because there isn't one. They are both equally bad.
Thanks, that is the first answer on this issue that makes sense to me. So practices such as <span class="b i">, much heralded in other threads, are also bad. Deprecating <center> hasn't solved the issue, it has created a different problem, because some are effectively using the same bad practice, with a more complex syntax, but with a superficial veneer of correctness.
However, whilst thanking you for your examples, I am still left pondering two issues. First, that words are only 1 of the ways in which people convey and receive semantic meaning (and the standards don't seem lend themselves to dealing with other forms). And second, that whilst there are technological reasons for separating content and presentation, that is anathema to all but a few pockets of human creativity. Reconciling those two seem key, to me, which is why I'm interested in links to the matters Tedster raised.
So practices such as <span class="b i">, much heralded in other threads, are also bad.
I will take credit for some of that style of coding. And even though I understand the purist viewpoint, I'm unrepentant because using this approach for a few basic classes has been extremely helpful when trying to coordinate a large team AND keep the CSS files down to a reasonable size.
I value purism a lot, but I appreciate pragmatism even more. And this particular breach of purism only has relevance within a given domain's web team -- it does not impact the web at large.
The main point I'd like to add here is that this particular train left the station ten years ago. It's far from something new, although only recently is it filtering down to the general public level. If there is anything left online about the theoretical discussion, it would probably be on the W3C site prior to 1997, when the HTML 4.0 recommendation was formalized.
...this particular train left the station ten years ago. It's far from something new, although only recently is it filtering down to the general public level. If there is anything left online about the theoretical discussion, it would probably be on the W3C site prior to 1997, when the HTML 4.0 recommendation was formalized.
Well, the most pertinent document that I can find is the draft CSS specification from the working group in 1995 that sets out the goals:
Goals
The most important goal is to come up with a style sheet language that authors (including the home page writer) feels comfortable writing. If we don't achive this, style sheets will not be widely deplayed on the web.The appearance of the web can be improved by a style sheet mechanism that:
- is simple, yet flexible (easy & fast to implement)
- is human readable/writable (just like HTML)
- provides a mapping between HTML elements and presentation properties (i.e. not SGML-complete)
- supports presentation hints, not commands (make no guarantees)
- can be contained (leave the HTML source to itself, apply to existing documents)
- allow both readers and authors to influence the presentation
- support non-visual media, e.g. speech synthesizers
- can be applied to incompletely loaded documents
- works efficiently in editing environments
- is platform-independant
I like this set of goals. It seems to strike the right balance between ease of use, influence on presentation and interoperability. How close does the current standard get? Well, given what has been said in most of the previous posts, I'm not sure if anyone will give this any weight, but here is my view...
- is simple, yet flexible (easy & fast to implement)5/10
Part of this low score is due to the foibles of different browsers. There is a lot of complexity and it took us a long time to get to grips with it and implement. Style changes are obviously very fast, but flexibility is poor as it is now so word-oriented.
- is human readable/writable (just like HTML) 7/10
There is a lot of redundancy that makes code look as much gobblegookish as the old style html. Eg: span class="" is unnecessary, and html span tags/classes such as <span class="danger"> could easily have been shortened to <danger>. This would be less offputting to the more occasional authors.
- provides a mapping between HTML elements and presentation properties (i.e. not SGML-complete) 7/10
Although the mapping system is there, the presentation properties are limited, again due to it being so word-oriented.
- supports presentation hints, not commands (make no guarantees) 6/10
It supports some types of presentational hints better than others (the ability to influence positional layout is not as good as heading/emphasis control). Also, the discussion in this thread gives me the impression we are going backwards at the moment, with more and more distance being put between the author and presentation.
- can be contained (leave the HTML source to itself, apply to existing documents) 10/10
I'm not 100% sure what this means, but there is a clear separation between the html and styling.
- allow both readers and authors to influence the presentation 5/10
It does 'allow' it, the author more than the reader. But there are problems that result from the various units that can be used - eg: it is easier to design in pixels which makes it more difficult for the reader to influence.
- support non-visual media, e.g. speech synthesizers 2/10
I've scored this low because I think this is the wrong goal (or a goal is missing). It doesn't even support a number of types of visual media very well. As I've said previously, words are just 1 form of communication. There are also signs, symbols (signs have singular meaning, eg: emoticons; symbols have multiple meanings, eg: the national flag), graphs/charts, diagrams, etc. that aren't catered for very well.
- can be applied to incompletely loaded documents 5/10
I've not tested this, but it seems to me that whenever </div> tags are missed off the end of a document, it often sends the top of the page haywire.
- works efficiently in editing environments 8/10
Again, I'm not sure what this is meant to cover, but the last time I looked (some years ago) certain editing environments (eg: microsoft) produce such horrendous style sheets that it could't easily be integrated. however, this is largely a problem with the implementation, not the standard.
- is platform-independant 10/10
As far as I can tell, the main problems in this area are related to the implementation of the standard by the browsers, not due to any inherent problem with the standard itself.
In fact I've given up even attempting WC3 standards and just check it looks OK in in IE6/7 and FF, if so, great.
The reason there are not more people supporting your view is that any mention of WC3 will get the "What does bold mean to a blind man?" brigade jumping up and down on your head screaming "Heretic!" on this forum.
I tried going down the route of hiring someone to validate some of my key pages that I wouldn't be changing for some time - and after going back to him to get him to correct the spelling errors and dead links, it worked! Right up until I wanted to change something...
Bottom line there are only a few reasons why people push for standards, and let's be blunt about it.
Elitism - "I'm sooo smart! I'm part of the smarty club!" features highly.
Worse, if there's a "correct" standard, then you can be incorrect. We are already seeing examples of people hoping to sue for "illegal" websites.
If we follow this route, and seeing as how so much of humanity is dumber than a rock, it will not be long before we'll have "licensed" website authors and "professionals", which means even more nonsensical jargon, high protected fees and internet censorship.
Never forget the entire point of a license is the ability to take it away - and everything about the WC3 I see follows the usual political route - "It's about poor people! It's for the babies! It's for the blind! It's for the color blind!".
No, it's about sliding in a "professional" standard so that websites can be controlled, ludicrously high fees protected while pandering to the egos of those that think they should be in control and that their ideas should be compulsory.
Yeah, that's a rant and lots of people here will snort in embarrassed faux-disgust. Frankly I'm not interested in hearing such protestations, I'm far too familiar with human nature to believe em.
I'd far prefer to see code editing software, browser makers, even monitor makers and so on, figure out ways for themselves to work best. The moment you give a bunch of numpties the power to tell everyone else what is "correct" you open the door to "punishing the incorrect", and often in an arbitary manner. By that I mean friends can bust rules all day long, others will be hammered for some "illegal" markup.
Screw your standards and the horse you rode in on.
Of course there are and will be some individuals who truly have good intentions. They are however the stepping stones to tyranny.
Those who simply see the advantages of standards are failing to see the disadvantages of them when controlled by some central committee.
Economic central planning is a dismal failure, so now the central-planners among us want to control the environment, control the internet and control anything else they can get their hands on. These are the same kind of people who ban smoking in bars.
Resist the central-planners!
RESIST!
OK, rant over. :)
And now, like everything else who shares Blue's opinion, I shall go silent again and avoid this discussion.
P.
Standards are not tyrannical and elitist. They open the playing field to everyone by making the boundaries of the playing field explicit and knowable.
An absence of standards is far more likely to lead to the creation of elitist circles where outsiders cannot understand the secret lingo used within. (A mix of English, French, German, Spanish, Russian and romaji-transcribed Japanese in the paragraph above).
21_blue: In some ways you appear to be arguing for more CSS, not less of it. I would love HTML and CSS to push forward year-on-year and if they had done, then perhaps by now in 2007, we would have things like being able to omit spans and define our own custom tags and reproduce the arcs that you mentioned earlier. The biggest thing which slows down the advance of HTML and CSS seems to be the tardiness of browser engineers in keeping up with the standards. (What do they spend their time doing? Making sure the browsers can reasonably display tag-soup instead?)
[edited by: ronin at 7:44 am (utc) on June 26, 2007]
