 |
|
|
|
Next: Anyone use WorldAccess/WorldPay? Mandatory field ..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 1625
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 6:07 pm
Post subject: Is The W3C still relevant?
Archived from groups: alt>www>webmaster (more info?)
|
|
|
Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
web sites.
CNN, BBC, Google and Fastclick all have parsing errors and some don't
work properly in Amaya. Strictly speaking then, these web sites are
wrong and Amaya is correct, but is that a sensible deduction? How many
people can not use Google, CNN or the BBC's web sites? Do not these
large web sites have more relevance to the real world than the W3C
academics?
I'd like to move that the W3C is no longer relevant as an implementer
of standards, and that the market place has taken over and now W3C is
renegated to an R&D model, suggesting new concepts to the market.
Matt Probert
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 08, 2004
Posts: 952
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 6:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:07:09 GMT, Matt Probert
<comments.DeleteThis@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote:
> Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
> a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
> proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
> web sites.
The trouble with the W3C is that they are always revising and introducing
newer and better versions of proposed standards. By the time the browsers
catch up and implement these things, the W3C has long since left them
behind. This results in people thinking the W3C "has it's head in the
clouds" since no website lives up to the standards it's currently
promoting.
First browsers need to support a W3C recommendation. Then a majority of
browsers need to support it before designers have enough courage to use it
on a commercial site. From recommendation to widespread implementation
takes *years* which some people misconstrue as current web designers not
caring about the W3C. Well, that's just not true.
Which brings out the most important element of this matter: If anything
isn't relevant anymore it's IE6. Released in 2001, this browser is
forcing developers to limit their implementation of advanced CSS and DOM
javascript to a level which was the standard four years ago. There are
almost as many sites out there explaining CSS hacks to work around IE6 as
there are tutorials on the CSS supported by the newest browsers like
Opera, Mozilla and Firefox.
Now with Longhorn (and IE 7) pushed back to 2006, the W3C will be
blissfully upgrading the standards while current CSS development is
*forced* to stagnate for years to come. Probably at least until around
2010, when users of Windows platforms other than Longhorn become the
minority.
Is the W3C irrelevant? For a few years it will become so, but not because
it's creating standards no one is bothering to use. Instead it's because
the browser being used by the majority of users is preventing these
standards from being used by its lack of support for them.
It has always been the case that the bleeding edge has been populated by
individuals who don't care whether their sites look bad in some browsers.
Check out <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml" target="_blank">http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml</a> for cutting edge CSS
examples (works mostly in Opera) and <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.csszengarden.com/" target="_blank">http://www.csszengarden.com/</a> to see
the benefits of CSS design where the HTML is content-only and constant,
and the layout is *completely* dictated by CSS.
The more timid commercial designers, who must make sure their sites work
in all browsers, only follow suit after most browsers support what used to
be the bleeding edge. Unfortunately, because of IE, that
former-bleeding-edge is stuck in 2001.
That is the only reason why the W3C appears to be fading into
irrelevance. But friend, don't believe it, it's only an illusion.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.greywyvern.com" target="_blank">http://www.greywyvern.com</a> - Orca Knowledgebase: Completely CSS styleable
Knowledgebase/FAQ system<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 23, 2004
Posts: 151
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 6:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Matt Probert wrote:
> Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
> a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
> proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
> web sites.
>
> CNN, BBC, Google and Fastclick all have parsing errors and some don't
> work properly in Amaya. Strictly speaking then, these web sites are
> wrong and Amaya is correct, but is that a sensible deduction? How many
> people can not use Google, CNN or the BBC's web sites? Do not these
> large web sites have more relevance to the real world than the W3C
> academics?
>
> I'd like to move that the W3C is no longer relevant as an implementer
> of standards, and that the market place has taken over and now W3C is
> renegated to an R&D model, suggesting new concepts to the market.
I thought that was already the case. Great standards to live up to but
not widely enough adhered to, thusly irrelevant. Sorta like the UN
after Bush got through with it.
Judy
--
brucie bait:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.technohippie.com/html/menthol.php?channel=2&d=&uname=brucie" target="_blank">http://www.technohippie.com/html/menthol.php?channel=2&d=&uname=brucie</a>
duende droit: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cattlehunter.com/" target="_blank">http://www.cattlehunter.com/</a>
red roust: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pointystick.com/funnypics/Password1.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.pointystick.com/funnypics/Password1.jpg</a>
karim kid: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pointystick.com/funnypics/4bc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.pointystick.com/funnypics/4bc.jpg</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 09, 2004
Posts: 214
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 7:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Way down deep in the middle of the congo, Matt Probert and a hippo took an
apricot a guava and a mango. Stuck it with the others and he danced a dainty
tango...
> Subject: Is The W3C still relevant?
--8<---
Oh god, I had to write a 2,500 word essay on that and 'future' GUI designs.
--
Dale,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.oxygenkiosk.net" target="_blank">www.oxygenkiosk.net</a>
Now playing: 03 - Attica Blues Remix DJ Food - Sunvibes<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 03, 2004
Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 8:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <40a8d24c.86196043 DeleteThis @news.ntlworld.com>,
comments DeleteThis @probertencyclopaedia.com says...
> Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
> a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
> proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
> web sites.
>
> CNN, BBC, Google and Fastclick all have parsing errors and some don't
> work properly in Amaya. Strictly speaking then, these web sites are
> wrong and Amaya is correct, but is that a sensible deduction? How many
> people can not use Google, CNN or the BBC's web sites? Do not these
> large web sites have more relevance to the real world than the W3C
> academics?
>
> I'd like to move that the W3C is no longer relevant as an implementer
> of standards, and that the market place has taken over and now W3C is
> renegated to an R&D model, suggesting new concepts to the market.
>
> Matt Probert
> .
>
bear in mind Betamax was technically far superior to VHS........<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 1625
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 9:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:18:44 +0100 Saint Firk
<rupert.murdoch RemoveThis @sky.com> broke off from drinking a cup of tea at Lazy
Fucking Student to write:
>Way down deep in the middle of the congo, Matt Probert and a hippo took an
>apricot a guava and a mango. Stuck it with the others and he danced a dainty
>tango...
>
>> Subject: Is The W3C still relevant?
>
>--8<---
>
>Oh god, I had to write a 2,500 word essay on that and 'future' GUI designs.
>
Ooops! Sorry for being a trauma zone. It's just. well, you know, I
thought the group needed livening up with a bit of non-political,
webmaster relevant debate.
Sorry, Firky.
Have another warm Speckled Hen, and this time try drinking it! <g>
Matt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 03, 2004
Posts: 221
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 10:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Matt Probert" <comments DeleteThis @probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:40a8d24c.86196043@news.ntlworld.com...
> Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
> a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
> proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
> web sites.
>
> CNN, BBC, Google and Fastclick all have parsing errors and some don't
> work properly in Amaya. Strictly speaking then, these web sites are
> wrong and Amaya is correct, but is that a sensible deduction? How many
> people can not use Google, CNN or the BBC's web sites? Do not these
> large web sites have more relevance to the real world than the W3C
> academics?
>
> I'd like to move that the W3C is no longer relevant as an implementer
> of standards, and that the market place has taken over and now W3C is
> renegated to an R&D model, suggesting new concepts to the market.
I've always seen W3C as an advisory service...Not as a hard and fast set of
rules that *must* be adhered to at all times.....
--
Sam.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.doohickeys.co.uk" target="_blank">www.doohickeys.co.uk</a>
for desirable devices
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.687 / Virus Database: 448 - Release Date: 16/05/2004<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2004
Posts: 952
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 10:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:00:36 +0100, Fat Sam <janetandsam.TakeThisOut@btbroadband.com>
wrote:
> I've always seen W3C as an advisory service...Not as a hard and fast set
> of rules that *must* be adhered to at all times.....
The "rules" have always been what the browsers support. Not what the W3C
says.
The browsers, however, draft their rules from W3C suggestions, and
continue to do so. Which is why the W3C is still quite important.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.greywyvern.com" target="_blank">http://www.greywyvern.com</a> - Orca Knowledgebase: Completely CSS styleable
Knowledgebase/FAQ system<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 137
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 10:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
GreyWyvern wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:00:36 +0100, Fat Sam <janetandsam.RemoveThis@btbroadband.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've always seen W3C as an advisory service...Not as a hard and fast set
>> of rules that *must* be adhered to at all times.....
>
> The "rules" have always been what the browsers support. Not what the W3C
> says.
>
Then what you suggest is there are no rules.
> The browsers, however, draft their rules from W3C suggestions, and
> continue to do so. Which is why the W3C is still quite important.
Thank goodness, or we would have a proprietary mess, not unlike what ms has
done.
--
Why should your dreams not be beautiful?
Why should you not believe in your dreams?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 137
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 10:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
GreyWyvern wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:07:09 GMT, Matt Probert
> <comments.RemoveThis@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote:
>
>> Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
>> a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
>> proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
>> web sites.
>
> The trouble with the W3C is that they are always revising and introducing
> newer and better versions of proposed standards. By the time the browsers
> catch up and implement these things, the W3C has long since left them
> behind.
This is good.
> First browsers need to support a W3C recommendation. Then a majority of
> browsers need to support it before designers have enough courage to use it
> on a commercial site. From recommendation to widespread implementation
> takes *years* which some people misconstrue as current web designers not
> caring about the W3C. Well, that's just not true.
>
> Which brings out the most important element of this matter: If anything
> isn't relevant anymore it's IE6. Released in 2001, this browser is
> forcing developers to limit their implementation of advanced CSS and DOM
> javascript to a level which was the standard four years ago. There are
> almost as many sites out there explaining CSS hacks to work around IE6 as
> there are tutorials on the CSS supported by the newest browsers like
> Opera, Mozilla and Firefox.
>
> Now with Longhorn (and IE 7) pushed back to 2006, the W3C will be
> blissfully upgrading the standards while current CSS development is
> *forced* to stagnate for years to come. Probably at least until around
> 2010, when users of Windows platforms other than Longhorn become the
> minority.
>
Who's problem is that....It is not the W3C issue is the developer of the
browser in question. They could develop based on W3C but they don't care
to hazzard a guess why?
> Is the W3C irrelevant? For a few years it will become so, but not because
> it's creating standards no one is bothering to use. Instead it's because
> the browser being used by the majority of users is preventing these
> standards from being used by its lack of support for them.
>
> It has always been the case that the bleeding edge has been populated by
> individuals who don't care whether their sites look bad in some browsers.
> Check out <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml" target="_blank">http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml</a> for cutting edge CSS
> examples (works mostly in Opera) and <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.csszengarden.com/" target="_blank">http://www.csszengarden.com/</a> to see
> the benefits of CSS design where the HTML is content-only and constant,
> and the layout is *completely* dictated by CSS.
>
> The more timid commercial designers, who must make sure their sites work
> in all browsers, only follow suit after most browsers support what used to
> be the bleeding edge. Unfortunately, because of IE, that
> former-bleeding-edge is stuck in 2001.
>
> That is the only reason why the W3C appears to be fading into
> irrelevance. But friend, don't believe it, it's only an illusion.
>
> Grey
>
--
Why should your dreams not be beautiful?
Why should you not believe in your dreams?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 25, 2004
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 10:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Matt Probert wrote:
> CNN, BBC, Google and Fastclick all have parsing errors and some don't
> work properly in Amaya.
While none of the sites you mentioned fully comply with any W3C
recommendation, they're about 98% there.
Looking at the Google home page, all the elements and attributes on it
are defined in a W3C recommendation (HTML 4.01 Transitional). Sure, it's
missing a DOCTYPE, a few &'s are missing their counterpart amp;'s, the
type attribute is missing from the <script> and <style> elements and there
are a few IDs that start with numeric characters, but it's not *too* far
off.
Biologists concerned with categorising the billions of species that exist
now and have come before us have a nifty trick. To see how closely
related two species are, you compare them both to a third species that is
completely different.
For example, you don't notice how alike an elephant and an otter are until
you start comparing them both to a spider, or a sparrow. Elephants and
otters both give birth to live young and feed them on milk. They're both
warm-blooded, have spines and are covered with hair (although the hair on
an elephant is much finer).
Likewise, the HTML used by people out there on the web is pretty similar
to the HTML set out by the W3C when you compare it to say the MS Word
(.doc) format, or even to MathML.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132" target="_blank">http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 28, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Matt Probert" <comments.TakeThisOut@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:40a8d24c.86196043@news.ntlworld.com...
> Download Amaya, the W3C's editor/web browser ("Amaya is intended to be
> a comprehensive client environment for testing and evaluating new
> proposals for Web standards and formats") and then examine some large
> web sites.
>
> CNN, BBC, Google and Fastclick all have parsing errors and some don't
> work properly in Amaya. Strictly speaking then, these web sites are
> wrong and Amaya is correct, but is that a sensible deduction? How many
> people can not use Google, CNN or the BBC's web sites? Do not these
> large web sites have more relevance to the real world than the W3C
> academics?
>
> I'd like to move that the W3C is no longer relevant as an implementer
> of standards, and that the market place has taken over and now W3C is
> renegated to an R&D model, suggesting new concepts to the market.
They were always esoteric. Still are in my book.
--
Charles Sweeney
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.CharlesSweeney.com" target="_blank">www.CharlesSweeney.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 09, 2004
Posts: 214
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 2:56 am
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Way down deep in the middle of the congo, Matt Probert and a hippo took an=
=20
apricot a guava and a mango. Stuck it with the others and he danced a daint=
y=20
tango...
> Ooops! Sorry for being a trauma zone. It's just. well, you know, I
> thought the group needed livening up with a bit of non-political,
> webmaster relevant debate.
>=20
> Sorry, Firky.
>=20
> Have another warm Speckled Hen, and this time try drinking it! <g>
^_^
Nice and relaxed now, went out with my house mate for a Thai meal, and a fe=
w=20
drinks in a nice bar over looking the Solent. It was 23'c in the shade in t=
he=20
late afternoon. Splendid!
Think I may pop off to bed shortly with a book.
I'm getting a complete old fart!
P.S
You may of guessed by now, I did not accept the job at Ridgemedia.com (if y=
ou=20
remember that post), now thinking about teaching whilst doing an MA. Oh wha=
t=20
fun! 
=20
--=20
Dale,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.oxygenkiosk.net" target="_blank">www.oxygenkiosk.net</a>
Now playing: Vive La F=EAte - KL<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 28, 2003
Posts: 585
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2004
Posts: 952
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: Is The W3C still relevant? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004 00:20:34 GMT, Heidi <blackcat2.TakeThisOut@zwallet.com> wrote:
> Charging up on a white horse GreyWyvern said:
> : Check out <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml" target="_blank">http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml</a> for cutting edge
> : Grey
>
> This page asked me to download something? Why? I don't like that. :p
You probably went there using IE, didn't you? The page uses a lot of
cutting edge code which might confuse IE into thinking it needs to
download new software.
Any decent browser (Opera, Mozilla, Firefox) should display the site
fine. In fact, it's likely *very little* of the site will display fine in
IE at all!
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.greywyvern.com" target="_blank">http://www.greywyvern.com</a> - Orca Knowledgebase - Fully styleable
PHP/MySQL FAQ system.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Is The W3C still relevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
