Just out of curiosity, what would you change in XHTML/CSS?
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:36 pm
If you had power to define a new web design language without worrying about compatibility, what would you do?
A community of PHP developers offering assistance, advice, discussion, and friendship.
http://forums.devnetwork.net/
Thats what xhtml2 did, for the most part.Gambler wrote:If you had power to define a new web design language without worrying about compatibility, what would you do?
Correct, it is a standard. However, as to it not being the standard, what alternatives compete?redmonkey wrote:Personally, I dont agree. As far as I'm aware, the W3C produce 'a' standard not 'the' standard. I'm sure their publications used to be branded 'recomendations' not standards, not sure if this is still the case?
Just like manufacturers of vehicles gain an advantage by having a consistent interface for gas/brake, steering wheel, and more, browser manufacturers gain an advantage by having a consistent interface for rendering html. Thats the benefit of standards.redmonkey wrote:I see no reason why any browser developer should be expected to adhere to any one set of recomandations over another.
In some cases they don't. There are more than a few examples for each of the major browsers. However, long-term, not implementing those features means they are less competitive than another browser. Thankfully, the browser wars have once again become furiously competitive, and users are benefiting more than ever. A good example is the Acid2 test. Many of the issues it tests for are obscure to be sure.redmonkey wrote:And, if the developers don't agree with a particular implementation of a recomendation, why should they adopt/implement it?
And both are happening. The majority of browser work is done to the w3c standards, and where the w3c cannot come to a consensus, the WhatWG are pushing ahead to develop new consistent implementations of ideas that can later become approved standards by the w3c. It is important to note that many members of the WhatWG are also members of the w3c, so they are far from working against them.redmonkey wrote:I think it's good to develop to a standard, but in the absence of any true standard it seems perfectly acceptable to me for the developers to develop to their own standards.
I can think of at least one easily: The box model. Many different browsers interpreted the box model concept differently, and the various interpretations resulted in a literal nightmare for anyone trying to do complicated pure-css pixel-precise layout. Thankfully, things have gotten substantially better in the last year, and IE7 looks to lurch us ahead several miles.redmonkey wrote:I also think many of the problems with cross-browser rendering can be attributed to the developers interpretation of whatever spec they are following. I've read quite a few of the specs and in many areas I feel it is open to interpretation although admittedly, I can't think of any examples off-hand.
That you can already do in xml. Define your own DTD, and you can in fact do just as you said.redmonkey wrote:I'd like browsers and online markup validators to parse my own DTDs so I can decide which attributes should and should not be supported/are and are not valid.
Your description sounds more like the behavior of browsers dealing with xhtml that it doesn't understand well, but it wouldn't surprise me. Frankly, with the exception of Firefox, I find all browsers fairly lacking when it comes to xml implementations (including Safari and Opera). (I should note that it is getting substantially better in Opera9, and in the latest nightlies for Safari). Of course, that does leave a rather important browser (IE) fairly far behind the pack..redmonkey wrote:I did try experimenting with XML and DTDs previously... it seemed, although I didn't look to closely into it that the common behaviour was to just completly ignore my DTD, fallback in 'quirks' mode and do the best to render a page with an unknown DOCTYPE.
Exactly. Honestly, I think all of the manufacturers make a good faith attempt to do their best to do so. Unfortunately, Microsoft's failure to release an updated engine for IE in over 5 years has put a severe dent in 'standards' support. Thats the danger of a defacto monopoly - without competition, if the vendor decides not to release an update, there is little we can do. Thankfully, Firefox, Opera and Safari are keeping the heat on Microsoft, and we're finally getting an update.redmonkey wrote:Agreed, that if a browser developer states that they adhere to a particular standard then they should do their best to comply with that statement.
Your choice of the word "Should" implies intent. Whether it should or shouldn't be regarded as the standard is not a choice any one body gets to make. It *is* the standard, and no others have stepped forward to challenge that position. The market determined the best choice. Further, its such a niche field, with such high requirements, that the opportunity cost would have to be very large to draw a competitor. Since the w3c is 'good enough' for the vast majority of both browser makers and users, its unlikely we will ever see a true competitor.redmonkey wrote:Although I do disagree that by only having one standard it should be regarded as 'the' standard by default.
Sure, and thats why groups like WhatWG are pushing the boundaries out. You are unfairly associating standards bodies with preventing innovation. It may be true in other fields, but it most definitely is not true with the Web.redmonkey wrote:In almost every industry there are products developed which are considered to be a break from the norm/standard and to me, that's what breeds innovation.
Unfortunately, thats the mindset that got us marquee tags, blink tags, and a range of inconsistencies so bad that you literally couldnt code a page consistently across even three different browsers five years ago. The world grew up since then, and realized that *billions* of people working together need at least the basic understanding of what a webpage should be. Without those standards, we wouldnt have the web and the features we have today.redmonkey wrote:It's early days yet but both products are being well received. I say more power to browser developers to do what ever they want
There are actually several. Of course, not every manufacturer follows them, but the vast majority do. The layout came about originally through market forces, and became defacto standards. Thats the same process powering the WhatWG features like Canvas and SVG, which will become part of the w3c standards as well. (SVG is already mostly complete in the standards)redmonkey wrote:With regards the car analogy, I could be wrong as it's not an industry I'm involved with but, I'm not so sure there is a standard as such which defines that the layout of pedal controls must be a certain order.
Hmm, yeah, perhaps that statement was a bit on the lose side.Roja wrote:Unfortunately, thats the mindset that got us marquee tags, blink tags, and a range of inconsistencies so bad that you literally couldnt code a page consistently across even three different browsers five years ago. The world grew up since then, and realized that *billions* of people working together need at least the basic understanding of what a webpage should be. Without those standards, we wouldnt have the web and the features we have today.redmonkey wrote:It's early days yet but both products are being well received. I say more power to browser developers to do what ever they want
I assume you are reffering to the working ethics/approach of the consortium and not the actual spec? I don't know enough (actually anything) of the inner workings of the consortium to be able to comment, although, with regards the specs... there is always room for improvement.Roja wrote:Put another way, I don't see much they could improve.
Agreed.Roja wrote:Correct, it is a standard. However, as to it not being the standard, what alternatives compete?redmonkey wrote:Personally, I dont agree. As far as I'm aware, the W3C produce 'a' standard not 'the' standard. I'm sure their publications used to be branded 'recomendations' not standards, not sure if this is still the case?
The answer is none. The browser manufacturers produce applications that render html according to the spec. Whether you think the spec is flawed (or not) doesn't change one fact: The browser manufacturers claim to support the standard.
With all the browser manufacturers supporting a single set of standards (the w3c's standards), that makes them the standards.
Agreed. My personal belief is we don't need a new web dev language, aside from the current ones. I wouldn't mind them just continuing the way they're developing.redmonkey wrote:with regards the specs... there is always room for improvement.
But surely when all the major browser makers are members ... well, there's something to be said for it, as far as the standard goes...redmonkey wrote:As far as I'm aware, the W3C produce 'a' standard not 'the' standard. I'm sure their publications used to be branded 'recomendations' not standards, not sure if this is still the case?
Ironically, M$ cooperates with the W3C. I remember one of the people that drew up one of their web standards was from Microsoft. And I don't think that was a unique case either. But alas, if someone's got their head up their @$$, then there's not much you can do...Roja wrote: The problem isn't web language at all. Its *one* browser manufacturer (who happens to have 80%+ marketshare) not following those standards, and not listening to customer feedback for over 5 years now.
Here's my 10:Gambler wrote:Do a little experiment. Take 10 random links from that list and give it to HTML validator.
It wasn't. Microsoft has a long history of endorsing and embracing the w3c standards.foobar wrote:Ironically, M$ cooperates with the W3C. I remember one of the people that drew up one of their web standards was from Microsoft. And I don't think that was a unique case either. But alas, if someone's got their head up their @$$, then there's not much you can do