February 12, 2001
6:36 PM   Subscribe

The W3C opens a can of whoopass on the browser manufacturers with this detailed list of bugs they'd like to see remedied. Will this result in any changes whatsoever, or will Microsoft and Netscape continue to ignore what they should be doing?
posted by mathowie (13 comments total)
Remember 1996? Back when the first CSS standards were set? I just wish the browser makers got up to speed with that.
posted by mathowie at 6:40 PM on February 12, 2001

This document is a Note made available by the W3C for discussion only. Publication of this Note by W3C indicates no endorsement by W3C or the W3C Team, or any W3C Members. There is no commitment by W3C to invest additional resources in topics addressed by this Note.

Which raises an interesting chicken-and-egg problem.
posted by grimmelm at 7:49 PM on February 12, 2001

For one thing, Microsoft is now the only browser manufacturer that matters. For another, previous standards have not made any particular impact on browser behaviour, so I see no reason to believe this one will be any different.

posted by Mars Saxman at 8:17 PM on February 12, 2001

One thing i would like to see is definately more info given back to the user as to excactly what is going on especially when a page will not load.
posted by Zool at 9:10 PM on February 12, 2001

matt: yeah, css in 96! Yet Netscape 4 still crashes when it doesn't like your standards compliant style sheets!

But, as it turns out, the W3C is somewhat responsible for the way the browsers have turned out (being that they encouraged browsers to innovate, to make up new (proprietary) features and technologies).

Still, I hope browsers become more standards compliant in the future. I can't wait to see what mozilla can do (if it is ever completed), and Opera is great (though you have to pay to get rid of the banners)...
posted by tallman at 5:53 AM on February 13, 2001

1.7 Warn users about incomplete documents and transfers.

I want this implemented across the board (coughIEcough)in such a bad way.

1.10 Allow the user to keep track of completed HTTP POST requests.

That's a very cool idea.

All in all, I hope that developers at least take this into consideration. I could see MS tossing it into the Recycling Bin, but if Mozilla follows it they'll have an even better product.

posted by cCranium at 6:13 AM on February 13, 2001

This won't result in any changes whatsoever. The W3C is a self-appointed group that answers to nobody and that nobody answers to, so their pronouncements are meaningless. Useful, definitely, but they're talking into the wind unless browser makers feel like following any of their recommendations. And since there are only two browser makers that count (and edging towards one), there's no competititve pressure to force them to care.
posted by aaron at 7:14 AM on February 13, 2001

Hmm, in regards to CC's comments, could a third party develop a plug in that would feed the user this kind of information? Is such a thing possible? Does anyone want to fund a project ;)
posted by Hackworth at 10:01 AM on February 13, 2001

"W3C opens a can of whoopass"? The linked note is actually more of a sad testament that the vision of a browser-independent World Wide Web is now, effectively, dead - and a clear demonstration of the almost utter meaningless of the W3C at this point.

Microsoft will do as they please - if they've not implemented some of those 5 year old recommendations in their product, why on earth would anybody think they'd do so now? They've absolutely no motivation whatsoever, since they've no competition. After the lambasting of Netscape 6 and their - at least to date - inability to respond with an upgrade to address the issues that keep people from using it, I'd say it was safe to assume that AOL is out of the game. Mozilla - with it's "hundreds of people (probably a few thousand, actually) using it daily" - is completely inconsequentlial in real life. (Yes, yes, we know, it's not a browser, it's a platform... whatever...). What real alternatives does Microsoft have to worry about? Oops... none.

Where the W3C might have been of assistance was as content moved to other delivery platforms - handhelds, cellular units, school kids lunchboxes... Instead, they're focusing resources on trying to document what needs to be fixed in products that no one uses, or products developed by a company that has no use for their input (or the input of anybody)...
posted by m.polo at 10:34 AM on February 13, 2001

Microsoft is now the only browser manufacturer that matters.

C'mon; everybody say it with me now: "Self-fulfilling prophecy".

posted by baylink at 1:54 PM on February 13, 2001

In case anyone still cares, Netscape 6.01, out a few days now, *does* address some of the problems in 6.0.
posted by rodii at 3:28 PM on February 13, 2001

Only "some"...?
posted by baylink at 6:53 AM on February 14, 2001

You mean, is it not the perfect browser? No. I mean yes. It's not.

On Macs, they suggest uninstalling ATM if you don't want that pesky totally-blank-screen problem. Some people are picky that way. (Actually, you just have to turn off ATM's font smoothing, but I guess NS couldn't figure that out.) That's the outstanding unfixed problem for me. ATM is as close to universal as any non-Apple software on Macs, and it's ludicrous that NS couldn't come up with a fix for that.

But it's faster and more stable, which make it almost OK for me.
posted by rodii at 7:00 AM on February 14, 2001

« Older   |   Just your average conspiracy theory. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments