Kogan will be imposing a tax on IE 7.
posted by idiopath on Jun 14, 2012 - 99 comments

Is Webkit, the web browser engine used by Safari and Chrome, turning into IE6? Concern is growing that reliance on proprietry CSS features marked by vendor prefixes could be breaking the web.
posted by Artw on Feb 15, 2012 - 57 comments

We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles. To that end, we are changing Chrome’s HTML5 <video> support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies. - Google's Chrome is will be joining Firefox in no longer licensing the MPEG-LA H.264 video codec favoured by Apple and Microsoft for use in the HTML5 <video> tag (previously). Not everyone is seeing this as a good thing.
posted by Artw on Jan 13, 2011 - 145 comments

Long Live the Web — An impassioned plea to actively support openness on the Web from Tim Berners-Lee. [more inside]
posted by netbros on Nov 19, 2010 - 8 comments

Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) - a sort of image format which records shapes and lines instead of pixels - is partially supported in most web browsers but not in Internet Explorer. Javascript libraries such as dojo.gfx and Raphaël have tried to bridge the gap programmatically with impressive results but it remains difficult to simply draw something in one of the available illustration tools and display it on the web (without converting to a raster graphic as Wikipedia does.) But hope for compatibility may be on the horizon: Microsoft has just joined the W3C SVG Working Group. (previously)
posted by XMLicious on Jan 7, 2010 - 51 comments

Why do we have an IMG element?
posted by chunking express on Nov 3, 2009 - 84 comments

24 Ways - 2006 Edition This year's possibly useful 24 articles containing 24 tips and tutorials for those of us who love CSS and other related web development techniques. Last year's links are included too.
posted by juiceCake on Dec 30, 2006 - 4 comments

Usability Exchange -- a testing service determining site accessibility for disabled users. They're only in the UK now, but it seems like a great idea. Organisations set up their tests online and submit them directly to disabled testers in our database. Testers are then free to complete these tests in their own time, earning money for each test they complete. As tests are completed by users, organisations can view test results, web page logs and other information in real time. More here at BBC, including some concerns.
posted by amberglow on Mar 17, 2006 - 17 comments

Internet Explorer 7. Dean Edwards does what a team of developers with billions behind them apparently can't -- update IE to work with modern standards. Almost, anyway... as he says, it's still in alpha, and has its quirks, but check out the Pure CSS Menus demo, for example.
posted by weston on Jul 29, 2004 - 19 comments

State of Validation 2003. Off the 430 W3C members, only 28 (6.5%) have sites that validate with the W3C validator as either HTML or XHTML! This represents an increase in standards compliance of 75.7% from the year ago tests. [via the big orange Z]
posted by riffola on Feb 25, 2003 - 28 comments

99.9% of Websites Are Obsolete An excerpt from an upcoming book by Mr. Zeldman in which he continues to argue the practice of standards compliance - "Held up as a Holy Grail of professional development practice, backward compatibility sounds good in theory. But the cost is too high and the practice has always been based on a lie." I enjoy his writing but he seems to be repeating himself as usual. Still, it is a good argument: where do we focus our priorities for future development - pure standards compliant CSS models, backwards compatibility, or somewhere in between? I know this has been discussed before but thought it postworthy due to the new book and all.
posted by poopy on Sep 6, 2002 - 110 comments

The Web Standards Project is back, now in easy-to-swallow blog form. Stand up straight! Close that HTML tag! And wipe that silly browser off your hard drive, mister! And the other one.
posted by gazingus on Jun 11, 2002 - 17 comments

web developer's guide to AOL. just in case you've ever wondered what their standards really are (well, yeah, neither have i, but...).
posted by patricking on Jan 8, 2002 - 18 comments

Disenchanted comments on the "Web Standards Project" and he disagrees with it. And I think what he says rings true: "There's no point in hanging a 'No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service' sign outside a web site."
posted by Steven Den Beste on May 8, 2001 - 71 comments

A spectre is haunting the Web - the spectre of standards. Jeffery Zeldman takes a bold step and stops supporting "bad browsers". Will the Web follow?
posted by geir on Feb 22, 2001 - 47 comments

what will be supported now that browsers are a-changin' again? handy resource from a Netscape product manager.
posted by patricking on Nov 18, 2000 - 0 comments

The Web Standards Project blasts Microsoft's "arrogant" break with standards in IE 5.5/Windows Edition. Please read the press release and, if you agree, post it to your favorite mailing lists and news groups. This must not stand.
posted by Zeldman on Apr 10, 2000 - 5 comments