Comments on: An epitaph for the Web standard, XHTML 2

Although the failed effort may have been a work of "philosophical purity," it was overshadowed by HTML 5. Why are Web standards so darned hard to create?

[FanBoy200]

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=599

[Thomas, David]

Standards aren't created because self interested parties dictate so. Standards are created because a "community" find common ground, proven-agreed upon practices, and tools that are more akin to natural resources (meaning they don't have to go to "a" vendor).

The communities needs shift, and adapt, making standards fluid over time, and self replacing by the actions of what the community uses, and needs most. There is an inherent life-cycle in that. Treating this process as a long term marketing opportunity to push a given product, or set of products fails in this scenario and will always have a great deal of resistance because they don't fit. Products fit "at the time", not always. Approaches work in very much the same way.

[minorplusest]

This proves that real life is hard for dogmatics, standards made sense in the 19th & 20th century.
W3C could change its approach by studying the current trends and offering a good reference for others to implement.

[rapier1]

Standards don't make sense? Umm... no. Standards are what allow you to actually have the sort of life you lead. Standard parts, standard protocols, standard methodologies all make a *lot* of sense. What doesn't make sense is failing to see when and where standards need to be expanded, modified, and eventually broken to allow for progress.

[pentest]

There would be no web or internet without standards

[jeffgtr60]

What???? So we no longer need standards for measurement eh? Or a standard for the physical size of a hard drive? I suppose we can all have different versions of speedometers. A speedometer for Microsoft miles and a speedometer for the mile that everyone else uses? Does like it might be just a slight problem? We have to have 2 different speed limits 1 for Microsoft cars, 1 for all the others.

This my friend is the type of world Microsoft has wrought upon every web user and most really don't realize it.

We are not so far advanced from the 19th century that we don't need standards.

[massfat]

That is not the world Microsoft brought upon us. It is the world the people who did not want to embrace Microsoft's better standards and chose to create their own. It is arrogance on the part of the world who refused to use better commercial standards set forth by a capable producer of excellent technologies.

A lot of people from the standards camp are also strongly in support of "free speech" and open source software. Well does it not make sense that Microsoft (or any other company/person) should be allowed to give their opinion on what they should support, and in essence support what they believe to be the future's direction?

For those people who say that IE was made solely to destroy Netscape and then to be let rot, well here's two facts you should know:

1. The plan for Microsoft's Internet embracement was completed before Netscape Communications (or even Mosaic Communications) existed as a company. This included plans for a bundled Explorer application. This also came as a result of IBM's resolution to bundle WebExplorer with their new OS. All this happened before Netscape existed. The public simply didn't know, because this was information that detailed Microsoft's plan. Of course, it's been a long time since then, so now we know.

2. Netscape was the one who wished to destroy Microsoft. Netscape was also the one who did not support standards. Of course, "standards" really weren't in place because the Internet was evolving too quickly. After the intense competition ensued, Microsoft came out as the winner, and not simply because they bundled Internet Explorer. Originally, NetScape was intended to be Windows 95's "killer app", but the guys at Netscape refused to work with Microsoft, and possibly even intentionally setting up a meeting such that the Department of Justice would try to stop Microsoft from bundling IE (we still don't know whether it was intentional or not). When IE was declared to be completely free (as in beer) for all platforms, Microsoft made a huge pledge to the world. The truth is, Microsoft had to pay ROYALTIES for each copy of IE distributed to a company called Spyglass, which Microsoft had licensed code from the Mosaic Viewer from, excluding copies distributed on Windows 95 and NT. This meant that they would have to pay extraordinary amounts of money to keep IE on other platforms, and because it was free, they could derive no possible benefit to shareholders, which obviously means something will have to be done...

[cupsdell]

One statement is misleading: "One of the big problems with XHTML was that it wasn't backwards compatible, though. Not only could it not be used to display existing Web pages, but Web browsers had to be expanded with an entirely new engine for handling the XML. Notably, Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the dominant browser by far, couldn't handle XHTML on its own. "

In fact it has always been possible to make XHTML 1 pages which are backwards compatible, which work perfectly well event with browsers like Internet Explorer which do not support XHTML per se. The W3C, which creates the standards, defines clearly how this may be done, and I have been making such pages since the XHTML 1 specification first appeared.

Lack of backwards compatibility can therefore not be cited as a reason for XHTML's failure to become popular. A more compelling reason is that XHTML offers few advantages over HTML.

[Shankland]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. This was a problem with XHTML 2.

[fazalmajid]

That statement is transparently false. Here is why:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/13/semantic_obsolescence

[fazalmajid]

XHTML 2 was an irrelevant act of intellectual masturbation. It will not be missed.

Standards should codify and tighten existing practice, not seek to invent new technology, as standards committees are just about the worst possible mechanism for doing so.

[Lerianis3]

Just the worst possible method for doing so? I don't think so. In fact, if they allow ANYONE to come before the committees and suggest new ways of doing things and new standards, they are the BEST method for doing so.

[Proud_Geek]

Some of my best masturbation sessions have been intellectual. That bright light bulb lighting up above my head? That's the money shot right there...

[kaisdaddy]

"That pace of HTML 5 standardization important, given the importance Microsoft places on supporting actual standards and the company's commanding market share."

HA! Microsoft now cares about standards? This is a new development!

[snorky22]

Microsoft has long insisted on the importance of standards, and consistently made clear that "standard" meant "made by microsoft".

[knowles2]

Yes Microsoft loves standard as long as they invented them and makes money out of them.

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

What everyone should realize is that standards are simply something that gives a certain set of people dictatorial powers. A committee that involves Berners-Lee, who thinks like, and actually has become, a megalominiac, will never become adopted by all. The statement made above that standards are there only to guide is an impossible thing

.Standards are standards and are designed to make a conforming Intenet, when the Internet is constantly evolving. It's only through evoloution that the Web became what it is now, a rich and living thing. XHTML works, but so does AJAX. There will always be evolving thoughts on the Web and people willuse different methods to meet their needs.

Standards don't work. Rather, a statement that the Internet is evolving at all times, and suggestions are always welcome and wanted, is what is needed. Who knows what someone will think up and make work tomorrow? Nothing is static and should never be static. Only through evolution will the net continue on. If there's only one way, be it HTML, XHTML, AJAX or some new way, then evolution is stifiled. Imagine if that happened to the rich world we live in now. Would we all continue to be protozoa?

What happened in the rich soup initially has evolved into what it is today. And one thing that just cannot be stopped is evolution.

[benopolis]

Boy, I can't wait for HTML 5 ... nothing makes me freaky-deaky like a thousand pages of documentation to describe how I can develop what I've been able to develop on the desktop for, oh, ten years. Love me thirteen different components and four network stacks to put together a client/server app with a decent user interface--yesirree! And then tweaking it for each browser... that's where the REAL fun begins.

</snark>

I'll take Flex or Silverlight over this rubbish any day.

[jeffgtr60]

On top of that you'll have to deal with the kind Microsoft will throw in by not complying with the HTML5 standard while everyone else does. Silverlight? meh

[sroussey]

With Google's acquisition of On2, perhaps they will open source VP6 to everyone. "On2's VP3 codec is the actual basis for Ogg Theora. In 2001, On2 open sourced VP3 under an irrevocable free license through an agreement with The Xiph.org Foundation." Perhaps it is time again...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/google_vp6_open_source/