Slashdot Mirror
Trouble Brewing at the W3C?
An anonymous reader writes "A breakaway faction of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) called WHAT-WG, or the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group--which includes Apple, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera--is threatening to revolt over electronic forms standards. WHAT-WG has announced its intention to submit the draft to the W3C, posing the potentially awkward possibility of the consortium advocating two conflicting avenues for Web forms. The fate of a standard could also determine whether the order form could be accessed in any standards-compliant Web browser, or if it would be available only to users of a particular operating system--an outcome that has browser makers and others worried about the role of Microsoft."
I'm all for choice when it comes to how to do things, but standards should be, well, standard. The point of such arbitrary standards is lost if the bodies that are supposed to arbitrate the mechanisms are squabbling.
However, given the members of the W3C that are in the breakaway faction, it gives me pause to think that the only non-participating engine coder on the list is Microsoft. It makes me think that perhaps the standard that our favorite punching bag monopoly is trying to do something with the web forum standards that the others aren't liking.
Of course, this is without R-ing the FA, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
We have a saying at work, "If there is a standard, then we will support it." Be it Java, .NET, Oracle, MsSQL, SyBase, Perl, ASP. If it's a standard we will support it.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
... this'll all turn out just like Beta vs. VHS with some initial worriement that resolves itself with one set of standards beating down the other and becoming the norm. As for the possible role of Microsoft... whoever gets Bill Gates on their team, wins.
I just love how :
:
"Apple, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera--is
threatening to revolt over electronic forms standards."
suddenly becomes Microsoft's fault
"an outcome that has browser makers and others worried about the role of Microsoft."
Geezus guys, feeling a little insecure are we?
No matter what the 'winner' is, people will still be running older browsers that don't support the new technology. So, as a 'just in case' scenario, application developers will still be using whatever programming language they're coding in to do the verification and whatever it is they need in the background. Unless I'm missing a magical thing that XForms, XAML and Web Forms 2.0 would be doing?
I read Joe Gregorio's take on XForms a while back. XForms seems to make everything regarding forms/interactivity unnecessarily complicated. (The standard might've been simplified since then, un-RTFA etc.)
668.5
OK. Lovely. It looks like the Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator browser war is back with a vengeance, only with some new players. I think it's safe to say that Macromedia isn't going to get its way, and I hope we've all learnt our lessons about Microsoft's bait and switch tactics with standards by now. Yeah, right! I'm betting Microsoft will go with XAML, and everyone else will go with XUL only to add XAML support later because Microsoft will refuse to support XUL. <Sigh> It's going to be CSS and browser specific hacks all over again, isn't it?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Now while I am one who loves standardization, the idea that you can impose standards that render all known browsers obsolete is ridiculous. Most people can't figure out how to update their computer with security patches much less download a whole new browser gasp... it'll never happen. The industry will not just leave 90% of their customers out in the cold because they cannot support the new forms. On another note, I am glad to see that some people are not affraid to stick up for the average person and challenge the W3C's authority.
Ok, the way I'm interpreting, "more sophisticated forms," is more hours spent trying to code websites to be compatible across different browsers. More hours spent adding and debugging code to check for the existence of support for a particular, "standard." More hours spent writing parallel code for users who support the new, "standard," and for users who don't. As well as yet another access point for virus writers to potentially exploit.
I like pretty forms to look at as much as the next user, but I'd rather have a fast loading site that gets me the information and products I want instead of having to deal with yet another pointless error message. I'm sure sites like eBay and Amazon might adapt this new specification, but not without using parallel code for those users with browsers who don't support it yet.
In addition to those two, there are other "standards" out there made by different proprietary makers. Microsoft has XAML, Macromedia has Flash MX, and Mozilla has XUL....
It sounds like the splinter faction is concerned about the lack of backward compatibility in XForms, i.e., it wouldn't be supported by their browsers and would probably require a plug-in.
Sense no current browser supports Xforms, this group figures that Microsoft won't implement it and instead use its XAML form specification. And since IE has over 90% of the market, that would make Xforms essentially irrelevant. XAML would become the defacto standard, and the spliter group's products (alternative browsers to IE) would not be able to implement the proprietary XAML standard. This would effectively lock thei products out of any corporate market that utilized form technology.
So it is a pretty big deal, and it makes sense that the splinter group members are concerned enough to take this action.
Armchairgenius.com - Where everyone is a genius.
I think you missed the point. He was saying that (Safari + Mozilla + Opera + IE) > 99% market share. So if Apple, Mozilla and Opera all get together and make their own non-standard "standard", ot won't really make things worse than they already are. IE already does things differently to everyone else, and this doesn't change that.
The last 2-3 years the W3C has been so caught up in retarded politics that it's out lived it's usefullness. Rather than focusing on stuff people want like webservices, they've been focusing on semantic bullshit and RDF crap. I hear their funding is seriously going to get yanked because they haven't produced much. The pressure is on, but I think the W3C is clogged by beaurocratic BS.
Most of the big standards that the W3C has published to date are more about documenting and unify existing technologies that have already emerged (i.e. HTML, XML, RDF). This XFroms thing would seem to be the first major thing they have tried to pioneer where all the major vendors have their own interests at stake.
I would be expecting more solidarity from the Mozilla side of things but I guess there is big business there too now. The web is about sharing where business is about Darwinism. This sort of problem has to be resolved if the web is to progress.
As for XForms, what can you do with them that you can't do already? Less Javascript perhaps? Is that worth having to support 3 separate technologies? If it doesn't get resolved then I know I'll just stick to the current standard as it will always be supported.
Let's see here...
I'm all for css, but the last time I tried "height: 100%;", it didn't work in all browsers (I think it only worked in IE). I love CSS, but we must admit that it is sometimes a pain in the arse.
perception is reality
As opposed to Microsoft's saying: "If there is a standard, then we will embrace it, pervert it and destroy it!"
Fron TFA:
The W3C is saying the answer is XForms. Microsoft is saying it's XAML. Macromedia is saying its Flash MX. And Mozilla is saying it's XUL.
The "standards" committe is saying one thing; Microsoft is saying another; Macromedia is saying another and Mozilla is saying yet another!
Did I misunderstand just WTF a standard is?
Not a clear winner? Depends on who you are. If you want more powerful forms applications, but don't think that XForms will be widely implemented before the next Ice Age, then Web Forms is the clear winner. If you want a nice clean, well-specified, easy to implement forms specification, XForms is the clear winner. And if you don't care...
This is your typical W3C specification hassle. The W3C keeps grinding out really detailed new specifications, but seems totally indifferent to the fact that that these specs take forever to get implemented in the real world, if they ever do. It's not as bad as it used to be, since everbody except Microsoft seems to be on the standards bandwagon. (Netscape used to be militantly indifferent to standards.) But unfortunately, Microsoft still has 95+% of the browser market.
You forgot number 3: The microsoft standard actually deals with the real world business needs for these forms.
And number 4: The "evolutionary" method is a load of crap that has been tried before (in essence, and in a non-published/standardized way)by people such as myself and it always sucks eggs once implemented for anything more than posting porn to a bit torrent tracker.
It is not a no brainer. There is far more going on that the micrsoft idea and "purists" at the W3C are dealing with. Most notable, web form generation from meta data (in a well designed way) that can generate forms for passage through XML middleware (like biztalk and some java stuff out there) without a ton of work for minor modifications and on a large scale. It is most certainly not a no-brainer.
Later, there will be versions for cell phones, and text-only displays. All possible because the formatting is not specified in the HTML.
If you want to spend the rest of your life hacking out table-based pages that are impossible to maintain and not viewable except on precisely the same display you tested it on, fine. But the rest of us are moving on.
This appears to be everybody against inertia; and Microsoft appears to be on the side of inertia. As another example, Dave Hyatt (a development lead on Apple's Safari) posted a tale about similar problems dealing with the inertia of the float handling in CSS:
Like CSS adoption, the problem with XForms is the lack of backwards compatibility with the old de-facto standards. Now with major releases coming soon (Apple in the first half of the year, Mozilla before May) it's looking like XForms can move forward by offering pretty baubles to web developers and browsers with these backwards-compatible, familiar, tweaks to encourage upgrades (and while you're at it we'll be in a better place toward Xforms 1.0 or 1.1 adoption).Note to moderators and readers: the parent is saying, "Is this really a battle for the best standard, or is it just a political battle among the existing browsers such as Safari, Mozilla, Opera, and MSIE?"
He raises a valid point: is this battle about standards or browsers? Is XForms being downplayed because WebForms is technically superior, or is it just because XForms plugins only exist for MSIE?
Web Forms is to XForms as Windows was to OS/2.
XForms is The Right Thing; Web Forms is Worse Is Better.
That's my general impression from the little I've read. XForms is loaded with coolness, but the spec is huge and it pulls in bits of other complex specifications, like XML Schema and XPath (as I recall). It's not straightforward to implement and that's a problem: witness the state of support for CSS 2.1 (let alone CSS 3).
Personally, I'm a fan of Worse is Better. We can have improved forms now and evolve towards something better. Right now, XForms promises little more than a dream.
Not to mention flash is evil (ok ok just my opinion) but I hate sites that INSIST on flash, not only because it's bad for the blin) but because web developers who use it never seem to understand that some people (try a great many) do not have a huge pipe to download all that crap. Another minor ding against it is that it's proprietary(sp?) IIRC.
I bought a game recently and went to thier site and the main page is just a big square block with a few trademarked logos on the bottom because I don't want to wast the time to download flash, then download thier intro.
I had to fiddle around guessing at the names of other possible web pages on thier site to find something readable.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
None of the things you listed are standards, they are all products or companies.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
CSS is more optimized on those terrible pixel-based fixed-everything layout.
That simply isn't true. With HTML, you have the choice between using pixels and percentages. With CSS you have the choice of pixels, percentages, ems, exs, inches, and probably a few others that I forgot.
Just go to css zen-garden (Google will find it for you) and you will realize that well over 90% of all these CSS-designs are fixed at 800 pixel-width and are thus simply worthless crap.
Go to any websites whatsoever and you'll find that 90% of them are fixed width. Newsflash: 90% of everything is crap, and there are a lot of incompetent web designers out there. It doesn't matter what tool is used, they-ll produce fixed-width designs, and if they can't, they won't use it.
What was your solution? Forbid pixels from being used in CSS? Even though you don't criticise HTML for having similar features? Even though it would mean it wouldn't be widely adopted?
(Before posting any wiseguy-responses, try your solution with a really narrow window, like only 100 pixels wide - it will almost certainly overlap.
Either put min-width on body or use display: table-cell.
While tables are not perfect and it's really annoying to define which columns should expand and which shouldn't, it just works
No it doesn't. You are just so familiar with table layouts, you automatically avoid the problem areas without thinking about it. Try pretending you don't know anything about HTML, and read the specification. You'll find all sorts of things that tables can do. Then try doing them. You will fail because you didn't account for browsers screwing up.