w3c - friend or foe

[MikeOS]

For a while now I've been thinking about the w3c and wondering whether they have started to lose the plot a bit. My reasons (which I'm about to list) are for a serious discussion on the subject, I hope we can all be objective with our views.

It seems that the w3c is pushing forward relentlessly in order to introduce standards, which seem to go unsupported through many browser releases, and yet they seem to ignore this important point and push on regardless. I also feel the manner in which they introduce new recommendations sometimes seems ill thought out. It seems as soon as (or in some cases before) one recommendation is finalised they are already going for the next one (in any given language), even though support for the new recommendation is non-existent and won't be for ages. I mean what's the rush? A classic example is CSS, only now under IE6 is CC1 fully supported even though CSS2 was finalised long before IE6 came out, yet CSS2, for the most part, remains unsupported in IE6 and other browsers. I remember learning about the aural CSS properties a couple of years ago, and still they're not supported, despite all this CSS3 is going ahead at full steam. This is clearly only one example, but the theory seems to apply to all the standards the w3c are responsible for.

Now lets take XML, its been around for five years and it still isn't FULLY supported yet, never mind all the technologies that fall under its banner. I also feel that XML with its surrounding technologies is a bit of a mess. I'm thinking that maybe this is one of the reasons why it isn't heavily supported, and why many developers have yet to embrace it. If you don't believe me just compare the XML forum on this site to the other forums covering the other languages - I mean as far as postings are concerned XML is lagging well behind the others, clearly not many people use it yet.

Now lets consider all those technologies under the XML banner.
XSLT
XSL-FO
SAX
DOM
XPath
XLink
XPointer
XQuery
Schemas
SOAP
Web Services (WSDL - UDDI)

You can even throw CSS into the mix, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I mean what a mess!!! Support in some cases is non-existent, yet most of the technologies have been around for ages. Considering all these technologies can we really expect full support any time soon, no chance!!! We must also remember that XHTML was only really introduced as a stepping-stone for HTML developers to get to grips with how XML works, with the intention of making the transition from HTML to XML easier. Considering all those technologies what chance is there of that now? I think the w3c has lost its focus!

Now we're getting modularisation of languages like XHTML, and yes CSS is heading that way to. What gets me is that they know they are going to do this before they introduce another recommendation but yet they don't seem bothered. It's like hey lets release this, and next time lets change it. I mean why release something that won't be supported for ages and then make a new recommendation that changes everything again in the meantime, when they could of just spent more time and made all the changes in one recommendation. I feel they are now making things unnecessarily awkward for developers, and browser vendors. As they say 'Rome wasn't built in a day'. I mean the web isn't going anywhere, what's the hurry; the w3c seems to be going nowhere fast!!!

Don't get me wrong, I don't underestimate the needs for a standards body on the web, but I do think they have lost focus a bit.

Well thanks for reading my thoughts, I hope your opinions will be objective.

[Jona]

I agree, they are pushing it rather quickly. But to boast that the Web is the fastest growing technology, and to increase the interest of companies like Netscape and Microsoft to make more and more poweful Web technologies, they push as hard as they can. I believe that one of the most difficult problems with Webmastering is compatibility issues. You have IE for Windows, NN for Windows, IE for Unix, NN for Unix, IE for Mac, NN for Mac, IE for Linux, and NN for Linux. Not to mention the fact that you have even more browsers for all OS's like, CompuServe, AOL, Opera, and there are quite a few others. However, I do believe that the harder the W3C pushes, the more interest will be sparked in large companies, and the more poweful the Web will become, and the more money will go into it; which is probably their plan.

[Stefan]

Originally posted by MikeOS
It seems that the w3c is pushing forward relentlessly in order to introduce standards, which seem to go unsupported through many browser releases, and yet they seem to ignore this important point and push on regardless.
I also feel the manner in which they introduce new recommendations sometimes seems ill thought out. It seems as soon as (or in some cases before) one recommendation is finalised they are already going for the next one (in any given language), even though support for the new recommendation is non-existent and won't be for ages.


Well, standards IMO should guide the way into the future to be usefull, not playing catchup with reality. If standards declared how things where 3 years ago, what would be the point with boothering with it?
Thus I don't really think it's a problem that W3C tries to push forward relentlessly.


I mean what's the rush?


To provide better and more accessible ways for us webdevelopers to make webpages for our visitors?


A classic example is CSS, only now under IE6 is CC1 fully supported even though CSS2 was finalised long before IE6 came out, yet CSS2, for the most part, remains unsupported in IE6 and other browsers.


Um hold on... IE 6 is crap, so far I agree, but "CSS 2 remains unsuported in other browsers" ... what planet are you living on?
Gecko browsers (Mozilla, NS 6-7, Galleon, skipstone, Phoenix, Chimera, K-Meleon to name a few) Opera as well as Safari/Konqeuror are all pretty damn good at implementing CSS2.


I remember learning about the aural CSS properties a couple of years ago, and still they're not supported


They are not?
I must say I don't keep up much with aural browsers, but I would have assumed that the latest aural browsers would have implemented it by now.
You have any links?


despite all this CSS3 is going ahead at full steam.


And just reading it already makes my mouth water. But before CSS 3 we will have CSS 2.1, the "now with ORANGE!" version :D


Now lets take XML, its been around for five years and it still isn't FULLY supported yet, never mind all the technologies that fall under its banner. I also feel that XML with its surrounding technologies is a bit of a mess. I'm thinking that maybe this is one of the reasons why it isn't heavily supported, and why many developers have yet to embrace it.


Yepp, it's true that XML is moving slowly. But to halt development becuse of that IMO is not logical.
Obviously new technique will take somewhere from 5-10 years to get wide support and I don't belive that is negative or even unexpected.
With XML (which to a degree is compleatly incompatible with old browsers) we are probably looking at even longer leadtimes, perhaps 15years, before it takes over (since also users have to have upgraded to new browsers before you can fully implement it).


Now lets consider all those technologies under the XML banner.
...
DOM
...


Ehm... the DOM have been used for years already. All modern browser already supports the W3C standards DOM model (IE5+, Gecko, Opera 7)


Considering all these technologies can we really expect full support any time soon, no chance!!!


No, but why does that bother you?


I think the w3c has lost its focus!


I think they are right on target, developing standards for the future.


As they say 'Rome wasn't built in a day'. I mean the web isn't going anywhere, what's the hurry; the w3c seems to be going nowhere fast!!!

The web is not going anywhere no, but the browsers certainly are. If the W3C cannot provide specs to follow for thing the webdevelopers want to do, then proprietary techniques will emerge.
We have already seen the horrible mess that creates for both webdevelopers and users. I at least don't want to get back to the "good old days" with NS 4 and IE 4, when you basicly had to design 2 compelatly different sites to make it useable. Add Opera, Safari and a few more browsersd to the mix and you quickly see that the situation would become compleatly unmanagable.

[Stefan]

Originally posted by Jona
You have
NN for Windows
NN for Unix
NN for Mac
NN for Linux


Just a little correction about that.
If you are refering to the new gecko engine, it's interesting to know that all these platforms use the same engine. That mean if you page works in Netscape on Win, it will look & work exactly the same on the other platforms. (There are platformspecific bugs but they are pretty scarse)

[Robert Wellock]

No, they probably haven't totally lost the plot it's just that things have been such a shambles for so long with regards to browser "web standards support" and they still are in some fields; Micro$oft Internet Explorer being one of the largest culprits predominately due to its mammoth market share.

I am just waiting until M$ introduces .CSS, although "CSS Orange" was an interesting W3C concept (and a major marketing gimmick) thus proving they do make strange decisions. The XHTML 2.0 draft in my opinion has many flaws and is going one step forwards and two steps back.

The truth is the standards are generally well throughout but the user agents tend to drag their heals, unless they think there is money to be made, or some gain, etc.

Someone show me an ACSS compliant user agent than runs on Windows and doesn't cost an arm and a leg - I'd write ACSS if I could actually get my hands on such software to actually test the output.

The other issue is it takes several years for a significant proportion of users to upgrade to the latest conforming user-agent, etc. How many websites do you see using SVG, I would if one could be certain that the average user had the appropriate SVG plug in.

[Jona]

Originally posted by Stefan
Just a little correction about that.
If you are refering to the new gecko engine, it's interesting to know that all these platforms use the same engine. That mean if you page works in Netscape on Win, it will look & work exactly the same on the other platforms. (There are platformspecific bugs but they are pretty scarse)

True, Stefan. I always get mixed up. A lot of times I have to code out a few bugs for the Mac on IE, so I figured it's probably near the same general idea (even though they're minor bugs) with NN on the Mac. Thanks for catching my mistake, though ;)

[boojum]

i think its great that the standards are continually be improved, each consecutive browser generation wont necissarily moved just one point release of a standard forward. with regards to xml, that is having great uptake in areas outside the browsers, in house applications are putting it to work alot now. the jumble of standards surrounding xml are just additional projects to complement xml, and remain apart of the xml standard so as not to bog down the process or bloat the standard. that said i believe there is a working group recently started to incorporate XHTML 1.1,
MathML 2.0 and SVG 1.1