3 ms·

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

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 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.