When I wrote this earlier, I had forgotten that Amaya existed. What a lasting impression it made when I tried it out last summer!
Amaya may be compliant, but it sucks. Just as Microsoft and Netscape need to learn from W3C's standards, the W3C needs to learn a few things from the evil corporations... like how to build a browser people will actually use.
If the W3C wants compliance, it ought to write its own browser. To hell with Microsoft and Netscape. They've both had their shot and they've proven that they are more interested in market share than W3C compliance. But can we blame them? They're corporations. They're in it for the money, and everyone knows it. So why are we relying on them to build browsers that work, when it's obvious that they have no interest in doing so?
Why don't we rely on those who do care about standards? People from the W3C and WaSP can sit around bitching about browsers all day long, but even the most well-written commentary isn't going to change the way these companies do business. Publishing standards and trusting the browser builders to comply might have worked for the Consortium in the beginning (another argument entirely), but the big boys are obviously having too much fun with their pissing contest to pay attention to those of us who have to work with their shoddy products. Why are we still letting them rule the playground?
Build a browser that works, and let everyone download it for free - including Microsoft and Netscape. Why not? Let them build their proprietary browser extensions around a base module that works, and then no one will care if Netscape adds a layer tag, or if Microsoft uses its own version of javascript. These features will become extras that can be exploited by programmers instead of barricades set to trip us up.
Build it, and they will come. And if they don't, who cares? The rest of us will, and good riddance to them both.
Slashdot Mirror
Webmonkey has a brand spankin' new article on streaming video that might be of some use. http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/03/index4a. html
When I wrote this earlier, I had forgotten that Amaya existed. What a lasting impression it made when I tried it out last summer!
Amaya may be compliant, but it sucks. Just as Microsoft and Netscape need to learn from W3C's standards, the W3C needs to learn a few things from the evil corporations... like how to build a browser people will actually use.
Tables.
If the W3C wants compliance, it ought to write its own browser. To hell with Microsoft and Netscape. They've both had their shot and they've proven that they are more interested in market share than W3C compliance. But can we blame them? They're corporations. They're in it for the money, and everyone knows it. So why are we relying on them to build browsers that work, when it's obvious that they have no interest in doing so?
Why don't we rely on those who do care about standards? People from the W3C and WaSP can sit around bitching about browsers all day long, but even the most well-written commentary isn't going to change the way these companies do business. Publishing standards and trusting the browser builders to comply might have worked for the Consortium in the beginning (another argument entirely), but the big boys are obviously having too much fun with their pissing contest to pay attention to those of us who have to work with their shoddy products. Why are we still letting them rule the playground?
Build a browser that works, and let everyone download it for free - including Microsoft and Netscape. Why not? Let them build their proprietary browser extensions around a base module that works, and then no one will care if Netscape adds a layer tag, or if Microsoft uses its own version of javascript. These features will become extras that can be exploited by programmers instead of barricades set to trip us up.
Build it, and they will come. And if they don't, who cares? The rest of us will, and good riddance to them both.