What most people don't seem to get (...) is that web standards help everyone -- people with old browsers, people with new browsers.
When used properly, they keep the visual "look" of the website from interfering with its usability (and readability) on older browsers, while allowing newer browsers to display everything as God and the designer intended.
didn't macromedia release a plug-in that spit out valid xhtml code for dreamweaver 4.0, shortly after it came out? not sure, but i think i saw that somewhere.
Also, as someone else pointed out, browser specific markup and table-based layouts often behave unpredictably when rendered by the wide range of user agents out there today. Standards are a solution to that problem.
In the WaSP's case, they were in a position to push the agenda of standards, which helps us continue to shovel out content effectively for the platforms and browsers extant and yet to appear.
That the discussion in this thread is primarily about resistance to common technical standards for web development technologies, rather than about their scope and how such standards should be implemented, illustrates just how immature the web development industry remains.
fanboy (n) /1: A person whose obsession involves an inordinate amount of collecting. They will buy almost any item associated with their interest, no matter the usefulness or the price.
You can comply with W3C standards, support rigorous document structure, and make your site accessible to even the buggiest browsers. WaSP has never said otherwise
“Dirty” standards, as some here are referring to necessary CSS workarounds, do not indicate a problem with W3C standards; they simply indicate where we are in browser history.
Second, that there are designers out there who don't understand the W3C specifications well enough to implement them properly.
I would even go so far as say that there probably isn't a designer out there who understands all the specifications so completely that they are able to utilize, and take full advantage of, all the elements available within them. The W3C itself doesn't make use of the 'acronym' tag in every instance possible. As an example there is this page. So, by pointing fingers, taunting, and trying to say that they're being hypocritical because they don't obey standards just makes you look like a bit childish.
Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs,
do you have any suggestions? I don't say that snarkily. my site needs to be accessible to the widest possible set of users - the long arm of the law might not be coming after us quite yet, but I'm sure it will eventually.
« Older Rabbits with big pointy teeth | US Surgeon General: Lose some weight, already Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments