Well, it's about darn time. This is something I have not understood for YEARS. Why do web developers build web sites that REQUIRE some little quirk of a Microsoft Browser to run "correctly." It defeats the whole purpose of the web. And it has annoyed me for a LONG LONG time.
Daniel Miessler
· 4 years ago
Yeah, this was the main thrust behind my Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer article -- Microsoft's continued disregard for standards. I'm going to be writing the follow-up piece to that one and if they really haven't fixed the problems I'm going to get ugly about it.
Jason
· 4 years ago
First, I don't think the general populace cares about security, at this point. I deal with too many people, high-up in their organizations (tech-oriented companies, at that), to believe that most people are really into being protected. They're not. It's going to have to be forced on them (or done without requiring extra work from them).
Second, W3C standards compliance is sort of in the same boat. While everyone here understand the importance of standards, average users don't. Nor do they care to understand. As such, I can't see standards compliance being a factor in "winning the war." What's more, not even Firefox is really compliant...though arguably fewer, it has its own deviations from the specs.
In my own feeble opinion, the browser battle has three significant factors: features (not bloat, but concise, reasoned features that truly benefit users), ease-of-use (!), and ease of obtaining the product (doesn't matter if it's free and is the top search result on Google...many people don't even update their version of IE--why are they going to download Firefox?). Personally, I think more energy needs to go into backing IE than anything...and, it should take the form of constructive criticism instead of antagonism. Of course, I may change my mind five minutes from now...it's just how I feel at this moment.
Carl, addressing your comment of the purpose of the web, "purpose" is just as much an evolution as the technology, and the one certain way you can send something in a direction you never thought it'd go is to put a malleable technology in the hands of a billion users. Interestingly, the web was free of commercial endeavors until about 1995 or so...it was actually illegal to do anything commercial-oriented prior to then. What a mistake that was. The web we know today wouldn't exist if that rule hadn't changed. Hell, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, otherwise. Want proof? The "web" existed for something like 30 years before that rule changed. Guess how popular it was up until then.
Thoughts?
Daniel Miessler
· 4 years ago
I don't know, Jason, I think standards do matter -- they're the glue that makes things work smoothly. If someone decides to exert monopoly power to disrupt a standard, there are very real consequences to it.
I get like 10 emails a week about why site x doesn't work in Firefox. Can you answer the question for that user? If it wasn't a real problem the user wouldn't have emailed me.
It's not a matter of the stability of the web (like TCP/IP), it's about the morality of putting money and marketshare ahead of the public's user experience. I think it's reprehensible, and if IE7 heads down the same path I'm going to do anything I can to help stomp it into the ground.
All they have to do is spend a little time to get compliant; if they don't it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Carl M
· 4 years ago
As we transition into Digital Broadcast TV over the coming years, imagine if some company decided that the standard that has been agreed to is "missing" a feature or two. So, they create TV's that do "most" of the stuff in the standard and ALSO have the capability to do a couple of extra things. Then they offer for sale equipment and/or software that stations can use to do these extra things (basically to broadcast to THEIR sets). A few stations (perhaps not understanding that there is a STANDARD that everyone has agreed to ... or perhaps not understanding that these "extras" will only be viewable by those using sets made by the one manufacturer and may make their broadcasts LESS viewable by others) purchase the equipment/software and implement some of the extras. It would be crazy. Is it true that there are worthwhile features that could be added to ANY fixed standard? Of course. But there is MUCH greater value in having a standard.
Jason, you're right ... I misspoke when I talked about the purpose of the "web." I should have said that picking and choosing from a standard feature set or even worse (MUCH MUCH WORSE) adding features to a standard feature set defeats the purpose of a standard feature set. Raise your hand if you remember Microsoft's alteration of Java. I mean COME ON ... if you are not implementing the standards of HTML (or JAVA or whatever), then you're not implementing HTML (or JAVA or whatever), you're implementing something ELSE.
Jason
· 4 years ago
(Note to Carl: Dan's already aware of this, but I'm something of a devil's advocate and debate-lover. I will often pedantically drill a topic to dust without even realizing it. Just to let you know, it's all in good fun--I like sharpening my critical thinking skills, besides.)
I completely agree with the technical value of standards. What I was questioning is their import in convincing Joe-Average to dump MS products.
"...if you are not implementing the standards of HTML...then you’re not implementing HTML..."
That's a sticky point, though. The W3C validates three variations of XHTML (transitional, strict, frameset), and we thus see that even the standard-setter recognizes the need for variants. Try implementing something using the strict DTD--it's no fun at all.
I suspect that there're some tech-savvy evolutionary biologists that might agree that this standards issue is much like...well, like evolutionary biology. What works best will survive, regardless of its form. We'll certainly see a few man-nipples in the equation like MS's Java; it's arguable that HTML is already doing much more than it was ever intended to do (mark-up should define the nature of the data/information/knowledge--not how it should appear). Granted, we're gradually shifting back to that through conventions such as CSS, but we wouldn't be at this point if someone hadn't mucked around with HTML in the first place to make it do something that's non-standard..
To refine my point in all of this, I'm suggesting that the changing of standards has never been, nor will be, a clean process.
Carl M
· 4 years ago
Jason, I'm not so different ... I too can continue a discussion (debate) long past the time that others are tired of it ... and I don't take attacks on my argument personally. As you say ... it's all in good fun.
First a comment about the variations ... when there are standard variants, then it essentially becomes part of the standard. And, you're right ... much of the evolution in HTML came from people adding their own little things. Some of these things were AWFUL (raise your hand if you remember the wonders of BLINKING text), and some were good. But ... a haphazard approach to the addition of features causes more harm than good. Especially when web page designers do not know when they are using standard features and when they are using non-standard features. I don't care if people use Microsoft products to develop their web sites ... and I don't care if people use Microsoft products to VIEW web sites. I DO care when people develop web sites that can be viewed properly ONLY with Internet Explorer ... or worse ... ONLY on a Windows machine. And the thing that irritates me about it is that some of these developers have NO IDEA that they've limited their audience in this way (why not have the web development package TELL the designer that they have created a page that MUST be viewed using IE or on a WINDOWS machine: "You have incorporated a feature that is not part of the HTML standard and will not be viewed properly except ...")... and OTHERS (those that should know better) are simply too lazy to implement their pages using code that is viewable on a wider set of platforms.
Hmmmm ... I seem to be venting. :) Actually, this has not been a big issue for me (other than the Windows only thing sometimes) for some time. Things have settled down considerably in recent years. If we were still on the same pace of change, we'd be on HTML 17 by now.
Anyway, change is good. But it ought to be done in a methodical way. And I'd not be opposed to a fourth variation: (experimental). Just be sure that people designing pages KNOW when they are using these non-standard features ... and be sure that users know WHY the page their trying to view is "broken."
I've actually changed my mind somewhat, and I'm going to concede this discussion to you. This is largely due to the fact that I'm building a site for a company today, and I'm completely pissed with the tweaks I have to do to get it to work in IE (I view in Firefox when I'm coding). It's not just that IE is non-standard...it's garbage. In fact, I'm suspicous that the reason is because MS envisions a web built only with their tools, used only with their tools. I even think they want to kill HTML altogether.
All Comments
Second, W3C standards compliance is sort of in the same boat. While everyone here understand the importance of standards, average users don't. Nor do they care to understand. As such, I can't see standards compliance being a factor in "winning the war." What's more, not even Firefox is really compliant...though arguably fewer, it has its own deviations from the specs.
In my own feeble opinion, the browser battle has three significant factors: features (not bloat, but concise, reasoned features that truly benefit users), ease-of-use (!), and ease of obtaining the product (doesn't matter if it's free and is the top search result on Google...many people don't even update their version of IE--why are they going to download Firefox?).
Personally, I think more energy needs to go into backing IE than anything...and, it should take the form of constructive criticism instead of antagonism. Of course, I may change my mind five minutes from now...it's just how I feel at this moment.
Carl, addressing your comment of the purpose of the web, "purpose" is just as much an evolution as the technology, and the one certain way you can send something in a direction you never thought it'd go is to put a malleable technology in the hands of a billion users. Interestingly, the web was free of commercial endeavors until about 1995 or so...it was actually illegal to do anything commercial-oriented prior to then. What a mistake that was. The web we know today wouldn't exist if that rule hadn't changed. Hell, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, otherwise. Want proof? The "web" existed for something like 30 years before that rule changed. Guess how popular it was up until then.
Thoughts?
I get like 10 emails a week about why site x doesn't work in Firefox. Can you answer the question for that user? If it wasn't a real problem the user wouldn't have emailed me.
It's not a matter of the stability of the web (like TCP/IP), it's about the morality of putting money and marketshare ahead of the public's user experience. I think it's reprehensible, and if IE7 heads down the same path I'm going to do anything I can to help stomp it into the ground.
All they have to do is spend a little time to get compliant; if they don't it's because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Jason, you're right ... I misspoke when I talked about the purpose of the "web." I should have said that picking and choosing from a standard feature set or even worse (MUCH MUCH WORSE) adding features to a standard feature set defeats the purpose of a standard feature set. Raise your hand if you remember Microsoft's alteration of Java. I mean COME ON ... if you are not implementing the standards of HTML (or JAVA or whatever), then you're not implementing HTML (or JAVA or whatever), you're implementing something ELSE.
I completely agree with the technical value of standards. What I was questioning is their import in convincing Joe-Average to dump MS products.
"...if you are not implementing the standards of HTML...then you’re not implementing HTML..."
That's a sticky point, though. The W3C validates three variations of XHTML (transitional, strict, frameset), and we thus see that even the standard-setter recognizes the need for variants. Try implementing something using the strict DTD--it's no fun at all.
I suspect that there're some tech-savvy evolutionary biologists that might agree that this standards issue is much like...well, like evolutionary biology. What works best will survive, regardless of its form. We'll certainly see a few man-nipples in the equation like MS's Java; it's arguable that HTML is already doing much more than it was ever intended to do (mark-up should define the nature of the data/information/knowledge--not how it should appear). Granted, we're gradually shifting back to that through conventions such as CSS, but we wouldn't be at this point if someone hadn't mucked around with HTML in the first place to make it do something that's non-standard..
To refine my point in all of this, I'm suggesting that the changing of standards has never been, nor will be, a clean process.
First a comment about the variations ... when there are standard variants, then it essentially becomes part of the standard. And, you're right ... much of the evolution in HTML came from people adding their own little things. Some of these things were AWFUL (raise your hand if you remember the wonders of BLINKING text), and some were good. But ... a haphazard approach to the addition of features causes more harm than good. Especially when web page designers do not know when they are using standard features and when they are using non-standard features. I don't care if people use Microsoft products to develop their web sites ... and I don't care if people use Microsoft products to VIEW web sites. I DO care when people develop web sites that can be viewed properly ONLY with Internet Explorer ... or worse ... ONLY on a Windows machine. And the thing that irritates me about it is that some of these developers have NO IDEA that they've limited their audience in this way (why not have the web development package TELL the designer that they have created a page that MUST be viewed using IE or on a WINDOWS machine: "You have incorporated a feature that is not part of the HTML standard and will not be viewed properly except ...")... and OTHERS (those that should know better) are simply too lazy to implement their pages using code that is viewable on a wider set of platforms.
Hmmmm ... I seem to be venting. :) Actually, this has not been a big issue for me (other than the Windows only thing sometimes) for some time. Things have settled down considerably in recent years. If we were still on the same pace of change, we'd be on HTML 17 by now.
Anyway, change is good. But it ought to be done in a methodical way. And I'd not be opposed to a fourth variation: (experimental). Just be sure that people designing pages KNOW when they are using these non-standard features ... and be sure that users know WHY the page their trying to view is "broken."
The Small Failures of the Web
Also, in case you're in need of a good bout of vertigo today:
Americus-Sumter Chamber of Commerce
I've actually changed my mind somewhat, and I'm going to concede this discussion to you. This is largely due to the fact that I'm building a site for a company today, and I'm completely pissed with the tweaks I have to do to get it to work in IE (I view in Firefox when I'm coding). It's not just that IE is non-standard...it's garbage. In fact, I'm suspicous that the reason is because MS envisions a web built only with their tools, used only with their tools. I even think they want to kill HTML altogether.