Forum Moderators: open
The comments on the article are rather amusing as well.
[apcmag.com...]
Maybe he wanted people to be able to read it.
There is so much bad Flash content out there that I can understand why people hate it. Yet as far as I'm concerned BOTH parties are wrong; no one in their right mind can say that the future webmaster will still have to learn three programming languages to create interesting web pages, nor is it right that macromedia is the only company promoting frameless borderless css-less content. The technology has been around for years now, so how about a unique and open way of telling x image to do x on a screen with the ability to add an x note to it so that those who can't see it can read it?
One last note: technology is only a means to an end, not the end itself. When the technology and market starts moving in the same direction, maybe we can stop ****ing about the programming language used for our creations and start criticizing the quality of the creations themselves. What's more, I'm sure that with a simpler technology accessible more than to just techies web content will get much better - there's no way that things will remain this complicated in the future.
While standards in general are stupid, here's why css in particular is bad: "a) you need a degree to understand them; b) Microsoft doesn’t care about them; and c) they suck."
Sorry Mr Emberton, if you want to talk, lets talk. This sort of writing doesn't advance either side.
---------
Then of course there's the contrast demonstrated by the majority of those commenting, bringing up reasonable points both for and against him.
Oh well, maybe he's joking. I dunno.
(added) and personally, I find CSS very useful. I think of it almost the same way as external javascript - one page for styles, another for actions...
As it is? It is laughable.
I don't care what Microsoft does or doesn't care about.
So where does that leave me? >;->
Yeh, I know a few talented web designers who seem to see using CSS as 'selling out' or something.
The article...I confess I only managed to read to the end because it was so short and he didn't put too many long words in (although the punctuation! tsk) ;)
I don't care what Microsoft does or doesn't care about.
So where does that leave me? >;->
...you're fine where you are no matter what product you use as long as whatever you do works : )
Aren't we already in a new phase of the browser wars? This time, it is MSIE vs. everyone else--with everyone else mostly made up of Mozilla, Opera and Safari. It may not be as "heated" as the MSIE vs. Netscape war back in the 90s, but it still continues.
"b) Microsoft doesn’t care about them" -David Emberton
Then switch to a browser that does. But its hard to believe that someone who wishes for the browser wars to return would say something so obviously hypocritical as this.
I don't care what Microsoft does or doesn't care about. So where does that leave me? >;->You obviously don't know what's best for you and the rest of the web.
You obviously don't know what's best for you and the rest of the web.
That's the thing, we don't have much possibility to have a say in the matter. The W3C consortium is just a compromise as far as I'm concerned - I don't see much use in dwelling on how best to dictate how to 'best' make a webpage based on an increasingly redundant markup language. At best W3C is a rulebook for those developing new browsers - but a rulebook one (developers and webmasters alike) can take or leave at will. It's also a paradox: it tries to at once dictate what is 'best' for a browser, yet it dogs behind in criticizing the (and choosing the 'best') language new browsers try to impose. And then the webmasters are expected to follow suit.
IMHO, modern HTML is a language built on the limitations of the computers of ten years before. Shouldn't we be moving on to a new sort of markup language instead of waffling over the weaknesses and limitations of today's? Flash has already shown us what the web can be, how about the same, but open-source and available to all?
Yes the W3C is "slow" but it is building an international consensus not a national/proprietary one. Also the browsers are slower in development (so far) than the standards and the web site designers are (IMO) even slower.
Take a look at status of browser support for five year old "standards" - just about there!
Take a look at web page source code and see how few (even of major sites) are that current - not many.
Read the posts here at WebmasterWorld, where some of the most thoughtful and up-to-date web professionals hang out and count the number of Luddites - I was amazed/saddened that I needed more than my fingers and toes :-)
You obviously don't know what's best for you and the rest of the web.
Oh... I know what's best for me, I'm very happy with standards. I enjoy the luxury of being able to develop lowest common denominator standards compliant code and know that it will work in Konqueror, Safari and Lynx without my even having to check.
I'm not sure why I should trust microsoft to know what's best for me. If M$ doesn't care about something, it obviously doesn't follow that I automatically shouldn't be interested in it either.
I still subscribe to the idea that competition spurs innovation which ultimately benefits both developers and the internet browsing public. However, I'm fairly certain that competition should be taking place in the realm of what a browser can do in terms of zooming, bookmarks, notating web pages etc. not on how to mark up a web page, which just slows code development (because it has to be cross browser) and makes it difficult for some to always use their favourite browser (because sometimes it isn't).
I can't speak for the rest of the web.
Note to self: make sarcasm more obvious next time.
There are some around, you have to watch yourself...
As browsers like Opera have shown, there's plenty of room for "innovation" in areas that don't involve page rendering. Creating a usable and feature filled UI is half of what makes browser great IMO.
Maybe I shoulda used irony and smileys : )
