3 ms·
1. See the entire history of the Web so far. Obviously the observation about browser market share and "Don't break the Web" has been made many times, I am not g
by inimino 9y ago
1. See the entire history of the Web so far. Obviously the observation about browser market share and "Don't break the Web" has been made many times, I am not going to rehash it for you here.
2. Standards are a tool to improve interoperability.
When standards are disconnected from reality and cannot be implemented by any actual players in the market, interoperability is harmed. It is not even neutral.
The kind of attitude you are showing here is what got us the idiocy of XHTML2. That is, many of the people who cared most about standards and semantics on the Web went and threw their collective efforts into a black hole for years because they were too blindly idealistic to engage with or even acknowledge the actual industry, that, in their arrogance, they thought they were standardizing. Meanwhile everyone else happily ignored them and all their efforts had no real-world impact on anything, except that by taking attention away from other, more realistic, standardization efforts, they probably set real interoperability back several years.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoWhich is all completely besides the point? Reverse engineering and reimplementing the semantics of another vendor is obviously very much the opposite of "inventing random meaning", but rather "implementing a de-facto standard", and as such obviously helps interoperability. But that in no way justifies the first vendor inventing that de-facto standard in the first place, whithout wich there would be no need for anyone to reverse-engineer and reimplement it. If all deviations by browser implementors from the formal standard were reimplementations of deviations by other vendors for the sake of better interoperability ... there would not be any deviations at all.