41 A top to bottom revolution is needed

Thank you for raising these issues Molly.

I believe that Tim Berners-Lee nailed it on the head with the current state of web standards where he stated in his announcement of the World Wide Web Foundation.

“The Foundation will also look at concerns that the web has become less democratic, and its use influenced too much by large corporations and vested interests.�

There needs to be a change in the agenda of these large corporations and other interest. If money comes first then web standards go out the window. This simple principle applies to all facets of society.

With my recent time on the CSS WG mailing list and volunteering my time creating CSS test cases to make IE8 a better browser, I became disillusioned with the whole web standards community. I was approached by Fantasai to work with CSS test cases but I didn’t begin because I didn’t have a stable computer that would allow me to install IE8. I was invited to join as a beta tester for IE8 by Chris Wilson but then that invite never materialized. I saw how the Mozilla contingent in the CSS WG was trying to create a standard with empty attribute substring selectors that in not interoperable with the other browser implementations. I say that this small group wasted over 5 months over this issue. For what reason, I don’t know. David Baron could not understand why others within Mozilla have set this course to non interoperability.

So summing up, since Microsoft used me and no one saw any importance in me being able to have a stable computer, I now don’t participate on the CSS WG mailing list anymore or help to create web standards. This is a shame since I am quite knowledgeable with CSS. I’m still to reach 2 years of knowing CSS and now I just go off alone into the sunset and wait for web standards or browsers to catch up to me.

My dream: A one open interoperable web.

posted at 01:05 pm on September 26, 2008 by Alan Gresley

42 Did you seriously just compare WebKit to Silverlig

Really? WebKit is one of the most standards-compliant engines out there, and our developers participate in all the relevant Web standards groups. Yes, we implement experimental features sometimes. But so does every other browser, including Mozilla and Opera who you presented as heroic bulwarks against the evil tide of WebKit extensions. Also, we present our extensions to standards bodies, and have always been willing to change them in response to the standards process. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

That being said, if you are so concerned about WebKit extensions being publicly developed in the WebKit open source tree and presented to standards bodies, why not bring it up with the WebKit community? That would be more productive than launching a broadside on A List Apart.

In conclusion, I don’t see how you can reasonably compare a highly standards-compliant open source Web content engine to proprietary closed platforms. Looks like an attempt to score cheap points by saying something anti-Apple.

posted at 04:09 pm on September 26, 2008 by Maciej Stachowiak

43 Drawing a line in the sand...

It’s amazing this manages to become so complicated.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could focus on what we need!

Browser manufacturers HAVE to support the millions of badly written websites out there and we need to make sure our designs are able to reach the largest audience.

If we could just get every browser to support IE’s conditional comment (Admit it, they got that right!) we could solve a LOT of problems…

posted at 08:59 pm on September 26, 2008 by Matthew Hawkshaw

44 Are "we" looking at the wrong issue?

Great writing, Molly! :-)

There are two issues here. The first is the web-standardization “process”, and the other is the influence of corporations on the entire thing. They are different, even though they are often lumped together. There’s another issue, which is effectively a sidebar: the whole IE6 ‘thing’; I’m tempted to include IE7 in to this, as well. IE8 is a different issue altogether, and one I’ll ignore. There’s another issue of browser architecture and feature set; that’s a thorny commercial issue, and I’m not sure it has much place in the debate; it’s the same sidebar, perhaps a sister-sidebar?, as the IE6 issue.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is this fallacy that the web is a “democracy”. It isn’t. The web has no political model; it’s a tool. It has some characteristics that owe more to Ayn Rand than any democratic philosophy! There is an expectation that the web is, or should be, “fair”; this is usually vaguely defined as ‘equal for everyone’. Standards play a big part in this, but that sidebar of IE6 keeps intruding.

Let’s just face up to the realization that the web is not ‘fair’; it never will be. There will always be someone doing things their way; any system that precludes this would be more accurately called a “dictatorship”. No vendor will adhere to all the standards as demanded by any user-group, except their paying customers. Microsoft has made no secret of their desire to protect their primary product: the Windows OS. As such, Silverlight is a strategic business product. Mozilla doesn’t seem to have any such strategy, or response, in place: if anything, their work on so-called next-generation browsers is their response. More immediately, the Mozilla Javascript work is probably the closest they get to Silverlight. Adobe AIR is a product that has no apparent strategic goal; it seems that Adobe’s interest in the product is as a leader to their other, revenue-generating, products.

In short: when precisely defined business interests clash with a vaguely outlined culture – the proprietary business interests will always win. Which also gets to your point about intellectual property – if anything, intellectual property laws are becoming more prevalent and draconian. They are not loosening up, at all. But I digress.

The argument about how standards are defined doesn’t seem to pay much heed to the biggest stumbling block of all: every single web browser out there seems to be a monolithic application. In other words: it’s impossible to argue about the chicken and egg syndrome, because the chicken (so to speak) isn’t changing. If the browsers morphed into something that could easily be added to, especially by 3rd parties, then this whole “adherence to standards” issue would be moot. (Yes, there are security, and other, issues. I’ll ignore them because this is a blog comment.)

There might be a component-based browser, but I’m not aware of it. Mozilla’s open-source model doesn’t count: it’s not modular in that someone can supply a new CSS module without the rest of the application. Heck, to provide a new CSS module, the developer would have to fork the entire source code. That’s not “modular”, that’s monolithic.

Moving on. The standards process, as I’ve stated before, is slanted to the corporations. It is beyond “slow” and “unresponsive”. It’s comatose. Part of that is the way the standards are developed, and partly because progress is not in the commercial interest of the principle ‘contributors’. Lip-service notwithstanding, of course.

New, grass-roots efforts hold a lot of promise. But they are stymied by the lack of authority and the monolithic nature of browsers. They also fail to exploit the very medium they want to improve! (This might seem a trivial issue, but in today’s world: the way a message is delivered is as important, maybe even more important, than the message itself. Microsoft ‘gets’ this, but the web community doesn’t seem to. Ironically, and paradoxically, while they work to improve how the message is delivered!)

Until the browser is addressed, it really doesn’t matter how much effort goes into the web standards. IE6 is a ‘great’ leveler; it’s not going away and simply has to be coped with. The standards process is in such dire need of life support it probably would be better to let it die a death, and bypass the entire reason for the process. But ultimately, the web standards issue keeps getting back to that browser issue. Until someone (Mozilla looks to be the best candidate, from where I sit) steps up to the plate and produces a browser that allows the free market to properly compete – this debate will continue to travel the same circle it has for the past decade.

What the current efforts try to do is impose a commune on the web. The web is not a democracy, nor is it a political entity, to be manipulated. It’s a transportation system, a global Interstate if you will. The political process comes with the questions of where to build the pathways, not the traffic on that road system! Let’s put our effort into persuading Mozilla to go modular, and then may the best products win.

The free market idea isn’t popular (at least I’ve never had a positive reaction when I suggest it…), and they seem to fly in the face of “fairness”. But (Wall St meltdowns notwithstanding!) free markets are good at one thing: they work, and they tend to work exceptionally well. Regulation can be imposed by the API; fairness can be created by the open-source and commercial efforts to provide the best products.

Overall, I can’t help but think that the free market example is embraced on the one hand, and despised on the other. Many web-designers operate in the ultimate free-market; some with more success than others. But there seems to be a dichotomy when it comes to “standards”; the wrong model is applied: it’s perceived that everything should be ‘equal’, or ‘fair’ (vice versa is not implied, by the way). Trying to impose principles onto a commercial entity when it’s not in their interest just won’t work.

Discard “fair” as a goal; let’s try for “sort of equal”. And while we’re at it, let’s look at the browser, the ultimate cause of all this angst.

Thank you for a thought-provoking, and challenging post, Molly.

Carolyn Ann

posted at 09:33 pm on September 26, 2008 by Carolyn Ann Grant

45 Oops

Oh, I’m cross-posting that to my blog. I should have put that in at the end, but I hit “submit”. Sorry.

As it stands, this looks like a bit of self-promotion; I sincerely apologize for that. I prefer full-disclosure to simply to mentioning such an action. It just seems more honest. Again, I apologize if this looks like self-aggrandizement or self-promotion.

Carolyn Ann

posted at 09:38 pm on September 26, 2008 by Carolyn Ann Grant

46 Untitled

For some reason, the image that was conjured in my mind after reading all of this is that of the turtles cruising in the ocean current…

I tend to think of myself as a rather sophisticated web user, but I am also an “ordinary personâ€? and I am afraid of the “updateâ€? button (and especially the “send reportâ€? button). What I’m trying to say is that I find it a bit comforting and also a bit humorous that the almighty developers are having the same problems the rest of us are having: over bureaucratization resulting in semantics wars and not much results. And the main factor? Money. Weather at the grass roots level, up the ivory tower or in the depths of the gold vaults, any cause that derives from passion and creativity, will need a strong economic plan that if not profitable, is at least sensible enough not to stand in the way.

As young designer on the cusp of starting up a firm, going out on my own terrifies me, but I am also excited about no longer having to justify, for the fifteenth time, why I need to revise the style sheet … I learned from the most capitalist of socialists, my wife, that being self employed is the best thing you can do for yourself, for others, and sometimes even for the cause.

This gets me back to Molly’s article, J. Cornellius asks if we are all not overlooking something? Other industries that are international, young, and essential to the world? The art world comes to mind.

Look to the arts and you will find a world where no single set of rules applies, where there isn’t even a status quo to despise. Most artists agree that there is a “themâ€? and an “usâ€? and that listening to and respecting each other’s principles, if not agreeing with them, is the key to getting ‘them’ to listen to ‘us’.

Meanwhile, we (web coders\developers/designers\users) need a way to come to terms with each other, because the direction of the web will affect all other industries regardless of how regulated or laiser-faire they are.

[b]Furthermore, what’s the rush? [/b]
Why are we so eager to continue to push a way through when we have already acknowledged that 80% of folks are done trying to keep up. We CAN have an interoperable web, we DO have it. Let’s just all embrace all of the tools that are currently at our disposal. As far as I can tell, if it works in IE6 it works everywhere else, so it is the turtle, not the hare, which determines the outcome, and by that standard alone, I know I can push my work to the limit and trust that it will be universal.

The most important thing for me to remember: it’s the message, not the medium. Sorry – but the web would not be the closest thing to true democracy if “a page could not be displayed due to invalid codeâ€?. – Although in all fairness, the web is not – as Carolyn Ann Grant points out – a democracy, it’s a tool, and sometimes instead of being the speaking baton, it’s 7 billion megaphones.

posted at 11:58 am on September 27, 2008 by Adriana Alarcon

47 re: webhell'08

I <3 the joke, first of all, Molly. I also appreciate the insight into the WC3 and had some ignorance regarding how stuff works there.

The web will work without silverlight just fine.

Recently, I’ve seen how javascript and UI design is leading in a fine direction. Just think how long it took to get a proper language to be used properly. Obviously, some people have been using js for a long time with amazing results, and I generally mean a larger group working with it now… no offense intended!

Ruby and PHP battles showed how people have instinctive interest in ownership and [b]recognition[/b] of concepts. Like “purple triangle” or “MVC”.

Microsoft is guilty of borrowing terminology, but it is much worse than just borrowing; these borrowed terms lose meaning, [b]ignore[/b] meaning, or become corrupt (read FUBAR). This leads to the language degradation of anyone in earshot. If you’re talking semantic web, its really hard to respect Microsoft’s tactics in that regard. Or ignorance? The puppeteers need to [b]get out more[/b].

I’m not arguing to ignore IE as many people use it. However, why not just serve old tables and let them sort it out for a couple years; meanwhile serve semantics to browsers that get it. <br>

Table layouts is quick-work for those who spent “their day” in the table mine-fields, right? To make an alternate “choose-your-own-adventure” HTML page?

I originally wanted to examine nicer looking HTML and XHTML. How the crap did I get so buried in conditionals and bugs?

[code]
<!—[if IE]> redirect :: go to table layout because I do not care about you anymore
<![endif]—>

[/code]
</pre>

posted at 09:18 pm on September 27, 2008 by austin martin

48 dragging standards down into their hole

a symptom of these circles of hell that the standards community have been reduced to is the arrogance of latest players in the development of HTML and their antipathy towards the W3C. I have started to document their public statements (http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/). People need to show respect and understanding towards one another, this is notably abscent in the standards youth

posted at 02:32 pm on September 29, 2008 by Jean-Baptiste Clamence

49 Broken Model?

After reading this terrific article. I have to agree with every point. I would also go a stage further and offer up that the entire standards model is broken!

Let me explain, the foundation of W3C was based around trying to bring the browsers together to try and get a standard specification for us professionals to work from. Now to a certain degree they have been hugely successful! It wasn’t long ago that you would see framesets and tables a-plenty around the web, but now if you take the time to look there has been a huge uptake on the proper use of markup.

Now I feel though in the hugely competitive marketplace all the big brands are starting to drift apart again in there uptake of new recommendations and even the different implementations of said recommendations.

Now I agree that there is no one culprit to point the finger at, but I don’t see a solution within the model we have at the moment.

Just my two bits in the pot!

posted at 06:04 pm on September 29, 2008 by James MacLeod

50 motivation

It’s just my naivety that I didn’t realize the scope of this problem. Listing the cons for these groups creates as nice pattern for this article, but “profit” is the only con that really needs to be listed for companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Adobe. It seems that the problem for the profit-oriented groups is one of motivation. How can you change the motivation of people like Steve Ballmer (sorry, I know I’m not suppose to point fingers)? Since “winning the web” is his stated purpose, how will you change his and company’s mission from world domination to civil responsibility? If we could at least mitigate that greed with a small dose of civic responsibility, we might have something? Since nothing suggests that these companies and their respective stock-holders will ever see the web as something other than a cash register, web-standards will always be compromised. Thanks for opening my eyes a little Molly, good luck.

posted at 05:00 pm on September 30, 2008 by tom hanlon