{"id":170,"date":"2003-04-16T18:04:46","date_gmt":"2003-04-16T22:04:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/wordpress\/are_standards_crap"},"modified":"2003-04-16T18:04:46","modified_gmt":"2003-04-16T22:04:46","slug":"are_standards_crap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/2003\/04\/are_standards_crap.html","title":{"rendered":"Are Standards Crap?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mark Pilgrim thinks so<\/a> — or at least if he doesn’t think so, a few months ago he was frustrated enough to say so out loud. More recently, Peter-Paul Koch<\/a> argues that web standards and forward compatibility are not one and the same thing<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Koch’s argument confuses Jeffrey Zeldman<\/a>, author of the forthcoming Forward Compatibility: Designing & Building With Standards<\/cite>. This confusion is perhaps understandable, given Koch’s rather contorted English constructions. So here’s my take on it. Forward compatibility means, “will my website of today perform well in the browsers and devices of tomorrow?” Koch is asking, “If I follow web standards, will I achieve forward compatibility?” Koch’s answer is a resounding no<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

People who believe the answer is “yes” are assuming that the browser-makers will implement web standards properly. But time and time again, the browser-makers have failed to do this. Ask Mark about the OBJECT element<\/a>, or XHTML Basic<\/a>. Better yet, ask Anil Dash<\/a>. He’ll give you an earful.<\/p>\n

Presumably the “yes” people fall into one of two camps:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    The strict interpretation: Web Standards = Forward Compatibility. Since the strict interpretation is contraindicated by vast reams of physical evidence from the real world, this one is safely ignored. We can only marvel at the stubborn persistence of this belief, which serves as definitive proof of the power of articles in glossy magazines and hip web publications to bend and warp reality.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The loose interpretation (the “faithful” interpretation): Web Standards != Forward Compatibility… but they will<\/em> at some unspecified point in the future. This belief at least takes the current situation into account, and couples it with a sweet, childlike faith that things will be better in the future.<\/p>\n

    That is to say, despite all historical evidence to the contrary<\/em>, and despite the almost total absence of market forces<\/em> that would push things in this direction, all<\/em> the browser-makers will eventually realize the error of their ways and repent. And yea, they shall smite the wicked users of table-based layouts with brimstone and fiery ash, and the righteous shall be redeemed. By their XHTML2<\/acronym> DOCTYPEs shall ye know them.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Meanwhile, Zeldman has a sensible, practical take on XHTML2<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \n

    Regardless of the 2 in its name, XHTML 2 will not make XHTML 1 obsolete. Browsers will not stop supporting XHTML 1. Designers will never have to use XHTML 2. Those who find it beneficial will adopt it. Those who don’t, won’t.<\/p>\n

    That many designers might never use the emerging specification does not seem to bother most of the framers of XHTML 2, nor does it seem to make them question the value or practicality of what they are creating.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    If one of the driving forces behind the Web Standards Project<\/a> can say such things about the latest, greatest version of HTML, then it behooves us all to be wary. So I’ve started reading the public email lists<\/a> for XHTML2. I’m still formulating my thoughts on XHTML2, but my initial take is that it is a real chamber of horrors. I’d like to write more, but I must cool my boiling blood and be off for Passover Seder.<\/p>\n

    More to come. Happy Pesach.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    And yea, they shall smite the wicked users of table-based layouts with brimstone and fiery ash, and the righteous shall be redeemed. By their XHTML2<\/acronym> DOCTYPEs shall ye know them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-web"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goer.org\/Journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}