3 ms·

That's the whole point of a standard (note that I said for .gov): the government says what standard they interop with. They either conform or don't. If other im

That's the whole point of a standard (note that I said for .gov): the government says what standard they interop with. They either conform or don't. If other implementations don't conform, they are wrong. If the site doesn't conform, it is wrong. If it's not in scope for the standard (e.g. layout/font), it's out of scope. If the standard is underspecified or wrong somehow, you fix that and .gov now targets the new revision. The government doesn't need to worry about market share. They can just dictate that this is what your browser needs to do to work with government systems. This is both more fair and easier for everyone; you don't have a moving target to aim for, and can just refer to the standard for what to do.

crazygringo 3y ago
But government don't exist to serve standards. Governments exist to serve their citizens -- their users. It's extremely user/citizen-hostile to say, "well our site works but no commercial browsers do, so I guess you can't register for a health plan this year over the web." And I don't know about you, but I sure don't want the government building its own standards-based browser required for accessing government websites...
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  The government should set or adopt standards, not serve them. And they can and should provide a reference implementation. We could easily and reliably do forms on mainframes. This is not complicated. And de facto, every browser supports HTML 4 forms anyway, so that's a non-concern. They already set standards for things like needing to support TLS 1.3 with specific cipher suites. There's no reason they can't say HTML 4 forms and links are required for browsers to work on their sites.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    No -- I don't want the US government (or any other) involved in setting web standards. The W3C is not going to be helped by being run by governments instead. No -- I don't want the US government providing a reference implementation of web browsers. No -- I don't want to log into a mainframe computer to fill out my taxes or sign up for Medicaid or a health plan. The government should simply build services that work, in practical ways that are familiar and friendly to their citizens, according to the tools and habits their citizens are already accustomed to. That means websites and apps for popular OS'es and browsers. It means phone numbers that work with existing telephones. It means offices in population centers. Good governments come to where users/citizens already are. The shouldn't make users/citizens jump through hurdles to come to it, any more than necessary.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      Like I said, the US government should just adopt the existing W3C standard. It's crazy to me that 10 years ago people were against the standard for government documents being essentially "whatever Microsoft office does", but in 2023, we've decided it makes sense for the standard for government web sites to be "whatever Chrome and Safari do". And as I've pointed out, for historical reasons, we already have an adequate standard that the major browsers already support. So just target that standard. It happens that this is also the cheapest, simplest, most reliable way to do things anyway.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        But you're saying that the government should create websites according to those standards, and if it breaks in Chrome or Safari, the government shouldn't test and fix it. Rather, the browsers should fix it. That's a position I just can't get behind. These are all just tools. The point isn't to follow some ideology, the point is to function. And no, the government shouldn't formally "adopt" any specific W3C standard either, because standards evolve, and we don't want the government to get stuck in time. It should just write and maintain websites that work. This isn't complicated. Businesses all seem to manage it just fine. The government doesn't need to do it any differently.
        ndriscoll 3y ago
        If a browser breaks forms somehow, then yeah I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to try to fix their website to somehow work (if it's even possible). Same as if they break links, or TLS, or HTTP. The government should just say "chrome 287 doesn't work". The "evolving" standards of browsers mostly add a bunch of useless toys that create security vulnerabilities. There's no reason for serious sites to target them. The old standards do everything you need to quickly and easily make a functional tool that will require no maintenance for years or decades, which is exactly what you want from tools.

crazygringo 3y ago

But government don't exist to serve standards. Governments exist to serve their citizens -- their users. It's extremely user/citizen-hostile to say, "well our site works but no commercial browsers do, so I guess you can't register for a health plan this year over the web." And I don't know about you, but I sure don't want the government building its own standards-based browser required for accessing government websites...

ndriscoll 3y ago
The government should set or adopt standards, not serve them. And they can and should provide a reference implementation. We could easily and reliably do forms on mainframes. This is not complicated. And de facto, every browser supports HTML 4 forms anyway, so that's a non-concern. They already set standards for things like needing to support TLS 1.3 with specific cipher suites. There's no reason they can't say HTML 4 forms and links are required for browsers to work on their sites.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No -- I don't want the US government (or any other) involved in setting web standards. The W3C is not going to be helped by being run by governments instead. No -- I don't want the US government providing a reference implementation of web browsers. No -- I don't want to log into a mainframe computer to fill out my taxes or sign up for Medicaid or a health plan. The government should simply build services that work, in practical ways that are familiar and friendly to their citizens, according to the tools and habits their citizens are already accustomed to. That means websites and apps for popular OS'es and browsers. It means phone numbers that work with existing telephones. It means offices in population centers. Good governments come to where users/citizens already are. The shouldn't make users/citizens jump through hurdles to come to it, any more than necessary.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    Like I said, the US government should just adopt the existing W3C standard. It's crazy to me that 10 years ago people were against the standard for government documents being essentially "whatever Microsoft office does", but in 2023, we've decided it makes sense for the standard for government web sites to be "whatever Chrome and Safari do". And as I've pointed out, for historical reasons, we already have an adequate standard that the major browsers already support. So just target that standard. It happens that this is also the cheapest, simplest, most reliable way to do things anyway.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      But you're saying that the government should create websites according to those standards, and if it breaks in Chrome or Safari, the government shouldn't test and fix it. Rather, the browsers should fix it. That's a position I just can't get behind. These are all just tools. The point isn't to follow some ideology, the point is to function. And no, the government shouldn't formally "adopt" any specific W3C standard either, because standards evolve, and we don't want the government to get stuck in time. It should just write and maintain websites that work. This isn't complicated. Businesses all seem to manage it just fine. The government doesn't need to do it any differently.
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        If a browser breaks forms somehow, then yeah I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to try to fix their website to somehow work (if it's even possible). Same as if they break links, or TLS, or HTTP. The government should just say "chrome 287 doesn't work". The "evolving" standards of browsers mostly add a bunch of useless toys that create security vulnerabilities. There's no reason for serious sites to target them. The old standards do everything you need to quickly and easily make a functional tool that will require no maintenance for years or decades, which is exactly what you want from tools.