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."
1) I believe Konqueror is the best browser currently out there. Some will complain that it is not available for Windows. But then, why should, or since based on Qt, why shouldn't it be possible
2) The most important thing for standards is that not patented technology will be allowed to sneak into the standards.
Many of us have been conditioned to think that both standards and innovation are good things. And the latter is an overused word that Microsoft marketing has forced into the memestream. But really, standards tend to stifle innovation.
Actually, there might be hope if Mozilla was available as an Internet Explorer plugin.. similar to adobe pdf and macromedia flash plugins. When a page wanted to use the mozilla renderer for advanced features, it would simply tell them to install a plugin, which most IE users don't think twice about. Eventually, these users may get tired of seeing most everything in a plugin browser, and may want to try using mozilla standalone.
If we Ignore the attempts of Microsoft and others to make the web dependent on proprietary formats, etc. for a moment, the future of the web is quite exiting.
I'm talking about the Semantic Web, which is an attempt to deal with the IMO biggest problem with the web, and especially searching the web for information: you can only search according to syntax. Words, regexes, etc. is really the best you can do right now.
Searching would be so much better if we had semantics. Semantics would make searches and web pages in general much easier for computers to index and relate to what is actually being searched for.
An example: searching for "a yellow car for sale in $CITY, with a cost between $VAL1 and $VAL2." would not give a lot of unusable results today, but the semantic web would return what is actually asked for.
Of course, all this is just theory, and a best-case scenario example. And there are lots of obstacles for the semantic web; many people are happy with the web as it is, and it will take a long time to implement it.
Probably, some ideas would be incorporated slowly into the web as we know it now.
"As a brief aside, if I were Google ..., who are rumored to be working on client side technologies for managing information, I'd put a lot of energy into Mozilla, and release a Google branded browser..."
Mozilla, and Open Source in general has an amazing window of opportunity right now. A product tie in like the one described in the article is exactly what is needed.
IE looks as if it will remain stagnant for at least another couple of years. If there is a Mozilla marketing arm, they should be jumping in with both feet.
Similarly, now is the time for Open Office to get the MS Word compatibility bugs sorted out and to mount a big attack on the corporate sector.
If the Open Source community waits another year or two MS will steamroller them with the latest and greatest MS OS and Office packages. If they jump now and can find backers to finance PR and advertising, groups like Mozilla could make major gains.
Three Squirrels
You can see it on the streets. "Damn I hate these popups." "Use Mozilla."
As long as we keep telling everyone that there is an alternative superior to IE, they will begin using it. Eventually, people will have to build websites for Mozilla, and then we will be back to the IE/Netscape wars. Except this time, nothing new will be coming from Microsoft for several years.
I strongly suggest we build our websites with XHTML and CSS and ignore IE. We can put a message on our sites "We have detected that you are using IE. We require a standards based browser. Please download Mozilla, Firebird, or Opera."
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
That said, XHTML is fucking stupid.
And that statement is based on what?
As a developer, I find XHTML to be a huge improvement on HTML - it just makes more sense. No more half-assed guesses as to whether or not a tag needs to be closed or VARIATIONS in tag name CASES that SEEM to BE randomly switched BETWEEN by CERTAIN web designers.
Tables are discouraged which means XHTML code written by a competent developer is much simpler, presentation and content are easier (but IMHO not yet easy enough) to separate so designers have an easier time of things, the structure of XHTML is consistent, unambiguous and - assuming you avoid going crazy with namespaces - easier on the eyes of a developer, and much more easily parsed.
So what exactly was your gripe with XHTML?
Yeah, right.
- Do you have iTunes on their Windows machine
Literally millions of people use a big chunk of Safari on Windows. It's the browser built into iTunes. It works today.
So arguably the quickest, most standards compliant browser around, which by the way is based on the open source
Blah. I was following this guy's argument until I came to this part. Are there seriously "millions" of windows users really using the iTunes browser ? That number seems a bit high given how many songs Apple has sold. Also, i'd challenge that Safari is even close to being the "most standards compliant browser" around. If you're working off a W3C checklist, I'd say Mozilla has it beat by a longshot, and makes a much more meaningful dent on the web applications side of things than Safari does, which is another big battle against IE altogether. I just can't believe that anybody really thinks for a minute that the whole future of the web and the battle of winning the hearts and minds of "millions" teeters on whether or not a browser supports CSS text shadows..-- Maciek
So briefly stated, this is likely to be tagged as troll or flamebait, but there's a lot of truth behind this.
It is inarguable that a lot of the best innovation in the history of any industry has been made by people who go outside current standards ("Here's to the crazy ones...") and build something that is the best that they can make it first, and worry about the other considerations later.
[Note that "best" can have many contradictory meanings: best in some narrowly defined performance criteria (fastest, highest, biggest, smallest, etc.), or broad appeal (most general utility, most sell-through), or most efficient, least polluting, cheapest/easiest to manufacture, etc.]
Sometime these evolve into "de facto" standards, and it can be difficult to turn those into "open standards" where there's a level playing field for others beside the first-to-market to gain traction.
As a response, there have been many efforts to develop standards in advance of actual product. In my experience (CAD interchange languages in the 70's and 80's, XForms today), progress on these standards is relatively glacial, and they are often passed over by the industry at large.
I submit that both approaches are good, and that we ought to strive for a healthy tension between them. This argues for moderation by those who cling to the "purity" of their ideals as circumstances change out from under them, and for a willingness to exercise enlightened self-interest and surrender proprietary advantage, vs. rapacious exploitation of current dominance. (We know who we're talking about here...)
To that end, I'd rather see some of the browsers take some risks in advance of accepted standards, at the risk (and expense) of requiring a few willing innovators to perform some extra work ("click here for a non-fizbin version of this site").
Just for a couple of examples, why not re-think where some of later innovations are supported? Can the concept of tabbed browsing by pushed up to the server, so a web designer can deliver a set of related tabs to the client? Could support of the portal/portlet structure be pushed into the client, so that the work of rendering and compositing a page full of portlets can be offloaded from the server, and servlets can execute more autonomously when appropriate?
Read all the notes on w3schools.com, and use google religiously when you have questions. Also, be sure to look at the CSS source code on csszengarden.com, because it can save you a lot of time to learn through example. Keep it simple, too.
> I've managed to get my head around XHTML, but when I try to use CSS, I have trouble doing even the most basic layouts that could easily be achieved with s.
I had the same problem, until I ditched tables for div tags and css classes. Using the id tag is the key to getting layout right, and nesting your divs correctly will help too.
Start with one container div that holds everything, and that's your page. Give it an id class like: id="container", and in CSS, use the # symbol to identify it.
for example (in the CSS file or style tag):That would be for an id tag in your div: > I can understand why Slashdot still uses them.
They kinda have to at this point. The Slash system is too entrenched in HTML to change direction. Why? Because many comments would break XHTML, and there is no point using CSS without using XHTML, IMHO.
> With CSS, nothing seems to 'just work' on every browser. The W3C specs are confusing. And there's no decent HTML/CSS editor (as in the Dreamweaver kind, not the Vim kind) that I know of for Linux, so it has to be done by hand or elsewhere (Wine/Windows, et cetera).
I recommend doing everything by hand. You'll learn more and your code won't break as much, and you can quickly repair it if you know your system well. Or you could just download a package that lets you quickly post news to your site without having to change your templates every page. I've created one at sourceforge called Gemsites that will be releasing a 2.0 version soon, and while Gemsites used to be a Slash clone, it's now a standards compliant blog/photoblog package.
> What's the best way for a n00b like myself to learn and use CSS in the real world, where some people use Mozilla, some use Opera and Konqueror, and a lot of people use Internet Explorer?
Talk to people like me over email and I'll help you.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Would it be impossible to make web standards a browser plug-in? Something like an XML DTD that would be automatically downloaded every month and contained the lastest standards rules, so that all browsers would support the latest features as soon as they are published? Or maybe it's not as simple as that. Maybe there are rendering engine issues, etc. Still, it would be nice.
Where he errs, IMHO, is in the assumption that innovation will be incremental. He seems to be implying that the most we can expect from the future of the web are some (gasp!) cool new CSS features.
I beg to differ. The future of the web will ride on the wave of two related trends, both of which have revolutionary rather than evolutionary implications:
- Increased client computing capacity - back in the mid-90s it was all the average PC could handle to render a complex HTML page. Nowadays PCs are at least one order of magnitude faster, and a lot of the processing currently relegated to the server could be offloaded to the client. The reason that this hasn't yet occurred is that no browser has the appropriate plugin architecture. It is possible to develop plugins for major browsers, but there is no proper framework to integrate these plugins into a cohesive whole. Instead, an increasing number of networked apps are eschewing the web browser altogether in order to provide a better user experience (e.g. IM, P2P file sharing, online gaming, VoIP, etc.).
- XML - for all the hue and cry, the only significant impact of XML on the web since its inception 6 years ago is RSS. RSS is certainly cool, but it's just one XML-based language, and the whole premise of XML is that it enables the creation of multiple vocabularies. So there's a huge opening for someone to create a browser that intelligently processes XML vocabularies. This would include managing the relevant XML schemas (perhaps using a centralized repository), rendering the XML in various ways (perhaps including HTML templates and autogenerated forms) and persistent storage/retrieval. This is basically the goal of RDF, but besides taking what I consider to be a number of unfortunate design decisions, the RDF designers have essentially ignored the need for a new browser architecture to make XML use on the web an attractive alternative to HTML.
None of this is easy, of course. But considering the potential rewards of owning the new new browser architecture, I have no fear whatsoever that innovation will stagnate just because Microsoft decides to take itself out of the game for a while.Nonetheless, most of these applications would be that much more valuable if they were integrated together. To achieve this, a platform is needed that permits inter-plugin communication: a shared data model, a high-level framework for UI development and way for plugins to exchange messages. Think Eclipse for networked apps instead of development tools and you'll be on the right track.
Peer Pressure
Is far from true.
.Net thrives on it.
.Net framework. It can do everything you have expressed.
XML is integrated so deep into almost every technology available for internet development it is considered a ubiquitous skill for any level of developer.
WebServices are run by it.
Databases talk in it.
Office applications communicate with it.
Many large websites use it to render their entire sites.
And BTW the lofty platform/framework of which you speak is completed and needs only widespread adoption. It is the
blah
What the techie crowd continues to forget is that the vast majority if computer users are now "appliance users". In the past, computers didn't become widely popular because it was impossible to pin down what a computer did. Toasters make toast. Dishwashers wash dishes. Computers.... er, compute. The popularity of the web and email in particular have transformed the computer into an appliance that enables email and provides eye candy. There are a dozen MUAs better than Lookout Express, too, but the same problem applies. You have to know there is a problem and it has to actively interfere with your normal usage before you will do anything about it. And the average user has been trained by years of unstable software, mutually incompatible drivers and endless virus/worm attacks to accept that this is just the normal state of the art. Until you find a way to convey to the average appliance-class user that there even is a problem with IE (or Windows, for that matter), Microsoft can do whatever they want and ignore any or all standards.
Now, if the majority of websites (where the techies have a bit more representation) were to start coding IE-hostile HTML without the beancounters' veto having an effect, there might be a possibility of getting the message across. Start with the pr0n sites.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
SVG 1.2 is likely to be a disaster in all browsers, since the spec is focusing on creating an application delivery language rather than a graphics language (see the support for opening and writing to network sockets, for example).
Use the edit css extension in firefox, then you can see the results of your CSS coding in realtime.
Then a bit later test in IE and smack your forehead when you realise how backwards it is in supporting simple css.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
Maybe after the 10th web page with "Your browser doesn't support current standards!" they'll start to think about it.
This was the way of the WWW in the last century. But this time it's not about fancy new proprietary features of one single browser. Now it's for a good cause.