More W3C Disappointment
Home / Coffee Break / More W3C Disappointment
http://www.zeldman.com/..._________________
Red Ant
Share: 
| Zeldman wrote: |
| Alas, the organization appears unconcerned with our needs and uninterested in tapping our experience and insights. It remains a closed, a one-way system. |
Well now, that's not very Web 2.0 is it?
_________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
Crikey, that's a bit worrying. The points from Björn Hörmann are uncannily similar to what normally happens when 14-year-olds team up to start making new landscapes for GTA as a hobby project. 
I'd have thought that grown men and women working for the premier organisation developing formats and standards for the Internet would be a bit more dedicated and socially skilled than a group of teenage nerds?
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
I thought 'Is the W3C failing us?' (linked from Zeldman's article) was worth reading. Particularly the link to 9 Ways to Misunderstand Web Standards._________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
More on w3c disappointment from Eric Meyer._________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
And a non-WaSP response from Molly.
On the one hand, I can understand W3C's lack of development in HTML because it's taken so long for standards-compliant browsers to be developed. The most used browser won't be a standards-compliant one until 2007 when IE 7 is widely used, and even then it won't be complete. It will probably be 2008 or later before most web users have an HTML 4.01 compliant browser, mostly in the form of IE 7.1.
On the other hand, there's no reason W3C couldn't revise the crappy examples in the HTML 4.01 specification, disambiguate the proper use of <abbr> and <acronym>, update the linktypes to include rel values which are in common use but weren't defined in HTML 4.01, etc, etc.
Some of the work being done by Web Applications 1.0 is making it to W3C, so we may well see HTML 5 becoming a W3C recommendation by the next decade.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| On the one hand, I can understand W3C's lack of development in HTML because it's taken so long for standards-compliant browsers to be developed. |
I thought it was because the W3C isn't interested in HTML, having declared HTML dead around about 2000/2001 in order to usher in a shiny new future of modular XHTML and compound documents. Which we're all obviously enjoying now, five or six years later. Ahem.
| Cerbera wrote: |
| Some of the work being done by Web Applications 1.0 is making it to W3C, so we may well see HTML 5 becoming a W3C recommendation by the next decade. |
Ten years is way too long. Somethng like XAML could establish itself in that time, rendering the W3C's work even more irrelevant.
The language of the W3C response to Web Forms doesn't fill me with hope.
| Quote: |
| The W3C Team strongly recommend that future work should be in collaboration with the W3C HTML and XForms Working Groups in order to promote the development of a single community for improving forms on the Web. The W3C Team looks forward to working with Opera Software and The Mozilla Foundation to build consensus on unified approaches to forms and related Web technologies. |
http://www.w3.org/... Horrible waffly managementspeak that doesn't actually say anything. Why are they clinging so stubbornly to XForms?
_________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
Because XForms seems to be really nice tech? Anyone I've every spoken to who's used it gives rave reviews.
Personally I still think that the idea of modularised XHTML is the way forward - the reason that we're not using it now is because IE has said no and we can't throw away 90% of our users.
_________________
Web Developer, Kyanmedia
Share:
SVG's nice tech too. I just don't know how relevant or useful it is and how much effort to put into developing a standard that might ultimately be ignored by the web anyway?
I read quotes like this one:
| Quote: |
| Apparently it isn't obvious to Chris Lilley why the behaviour expected by millions of Web authors, Web documents and installed browsers (from a variety of vendors) should have primacy over a behaviour used by approximately no-one but which happens to be enshrined in a W3C specification (for a different format).
Wake up, W3C. We need you and this kind of nonsense isn't doing anyone any good. |
and get the impression that the W3C is out of touch with the real world.
Computer nerds, eh?
_________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
| eatyourgreens wrote: |
| Computer nerds, eh? |
Why I oughta.....
Perhaps things are just moving too fast in some areas to keep up?
_________________
Red Ant
Share:
| Richard Conyard wrote: |
| Perhaps things are just moving too fast in some areas to keep up? |
What's that, grandad?
We've installed the latest version of Coldfusion, which apparently includes XForms support, but I haven't had a chance to play around with it.
_________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
More letters makes it better, but a capital "X" trumps everything. Version numbers which include a minor digit (such as "1.1") are a boost; the more version digits the better (such as "1.5.0.6").
I think sxForms loses to XForms when using the NameRank 2.1rc3 API, but that isn't W3C standardised.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Last edited by Ben Millard on 15 Aug 2006 03:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Share:
pmsl 
_________________
Red Ant
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot 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