Slashdot Mirror


Future for Web Standards Pondered

An anonymous reader writes "With the next version of Internet Explorer tied to the release of longhorn, and still years off, what hope is there for innovation in CSS, SVG, XHTML and other web standards? Is the future of the web similarly tied to Internet Explorer and Longhorn? This article ponders this gloomy future, and sees a ray or two of hope."

7 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. The usual. by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Standards will be partially incorporated, but slightly fucked up. Dreamweaver 2k7 and Frontpage Longhorn will output garbled XHTML with a raped form of CSS that fails to display/work properly on any non-IE browser. SVG will turn out to be a disaster in IE, making sure everyone in 2007 is still stuck using JPGs and GIFs. By then IE will have integrated .NET ( Or some other half-assed scripting language. ) scripting abilities tied into the browser to replace the now obsolete potential ActiveX vulenrabilities. People will cry, bitch, moan, whine and Linux is set to take over the desktop market in 2007 again. Blah.

  2. Needs vs. Profit by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think there is a need to get XHTML and CSS all gooped full of new features, so I hope it doesn't go in that direction. I know Microsoft will try and take it in that direction to compliment their overcomplicated Long Horn. In my opinion as a user of XHTML and CSS with PHP, I believe that what is required is simlification so that everyday users will want to use XHTML with CSS. Products could provide this but I still think the best way to code websites is by hand. XHTML and CSS are quite satisfactory at this point, but perhaps they may require some refinement. Please no more crazy features, because you can save that for DHTML and Flash (yuck, but good for some). Take a look at CSSzengarden.com if you are not yet convinced in XHTML with CSS is artistically pleasing enough for you. It's a better standard than many websites around.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  3. Re:Innovation vs. Standards by Nspace13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but the standards are required to make the web usable to disabled people. Plus with current support you can hack up a page that look basically the same in both browsers, has wonderfully semantic descriptive markup, and doesn't look to bad to boot. Good web developers just have to be smart. Yes it is challenging to work in a field where your clients use a totally non standard set of equipment. So for some clients you code in HTML 4 with tables, most you try to use XHTML with CSS. Most web developers don't make any money, the good ones get rich!

    --
    steal this sig
  4. Gloomy... _TOO_ gloomy... by ericdfields · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article brings up many good points about IE's potential of totalitarian rule over the internet in the future, but I feel that it lacks insight on certain predictions, especially those regarding longhorn.

    For one, the time it will take for longhorn to be widely adopted isn't factored into this hypothesis at all. It's 2004, that means its something around 4 years since the release of Windows XP. But is it as ubiquitous as this author claims it is? Absolutely not. It costs a lot of money to upgrade a whole mess of computers to a new MS operating system, and many people just don't need to for whatever reason, so in many fronts, it hasn't been done. My high school has some 100-200 computers: some are brand spankin' new dells with XP, others are Windows 2000, and there are more than just a few OS 9 macs floating around there as well. M$ can't assume that longhorn's release - and subsequently the release of XAML, etc - will take web dominance even within four years. It will take much, much longer.

    So do the math. We've had a year or so heads up on the threats that longhorn posits to the Interweb, we have 2 1/2 more at least until the sucker actually comes out, and then over 4 years for reasonable ubiquity of the OS to make developing all future websites in technologies like XAML, etc worthwhile. That's nearly a total of eight years for standards to be utilized and improved upon. There is no reason why technologies like XUL, CSS2.1 (or even 3), and SVG can't be the accepted norm before then. The word just needs to get out somehow, but that's another post altogether...

    On another note, regarding his mentioning of a Google-branded mozilla or something thrown into the forray, that's just overkill. Just imagine if, instead, Google merely placed these words on the bottom list of links on its homepage:

    Google recommends Mozilla FireFox for a faster, more reliable, and more enjoyable web browsing experience.

    Really, they'd only need to have it up there for what... a month? two weeks? for it to make a HUGE impact in IE's dominance. Imagine......

  5. Microsoft needs pressure... by Chief+Typist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MSFT won't do anything until they feel some pressure from the market.

    The idea of a Google branded browser based on Gecko would work. Especially if the Google desktop tools work best with this browser.

    Getting Google to rank pages based on standards compliance would work (XHTML/CSS2+ design = higher page rank = more sites wanting compliance = less sites holding onto IE6 only designs.)

    A Windows version of Safari might work. If an iTunes install put it on the system (like it does now with QuickTime) then people might use it -- hard to say if that would provide any market pressure though.

    If something doesn't come along to shake up Microsoft (and it's got to be big, like the Internet in 1995) then things will not change in Redmond. At this point in time, Google is the only thing big and successful enough to rattle their cage.

    -ch

  6. Re:firebird by Ulven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole point is that you don't code for a specific browser, even if it is the superior. You code for the standards, and all else should follow from that.

  7. Re:Konqueror by LO0G · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a popular web site stopped working, the IE users would just stop going to the formerly popular web site.

    They'd feel that it was the fault of the web site author, and not their browser. After all, it used to work, and now it doesn't work. They didn't change their browser, so the web site must have changed.

    And thus it is the fault of the web site owner.
    It doesn't matter that they made their web site "standards compliant". Customers don't give a rats behind about "standards compliant". The only thing they care about is "Does it work with my browser".

    If it doesn't, they'll either complain to the site owner (unlikely) or they'll just stop using the site.