3 ms·

«All of which leaves just one question: what has the W3C ever done for us?» It has given us good specs fixed in stone you could develop against and be sure tha

by gioele 14y ago

«All of which leaves just one question: what has the W3C ever done for us?» It has given us good specs fixed in stone you could develop against and be sure that your code could still work in the next decade, thing XML or XSLT. Stable specs are also good for legislators and regulators, for they have the ability to pinpoint names and versions like "The minimum accessibility level for public websites is WCAG 2.0 level AA" instead of "all public websites must have a minimum level of accessibility". We can debate whether the W3C model is good for a spec like HTML that is subject to so many business interests, but what standardisation model has been good for many other specs.

grimboy 14y ago
Yes, but apart from good specs fixed in stone, XML, XSLT and WCAG, what have the W3C ever done for us? (It was a Monty Python reference.)
- bkardell 14y ago
  Specs are good, but they really aren't quite fixed in stone, things reach and then leave rec status. CSS 2.1 spent like 13 years going in and out of different statuses and only very recently appears to have been "completed".
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- brudgers 14y ago
  But which shoe should developers follow?
drhowarddrfine 14y ago
Agree. That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen. I believe the writer is not aware that all browser vendors are members of the W3C and it is they who wrote all those specifications for HTML/CSS/XML/etc. He also seems blissfully unaware that W3C standards are built on implementation by browser vendors, not invention, and the W3C rarely invented anything on their own.
TylerE 14y ago
Yes, W3C is good for having set-in-stone specs 5 years after they've ceased to be relevant.
Alex3917 14y ago
"It has given us good specs fixed in stone you could develop against and be sure that your code could still work in the next decade" A lot of the W3C specs are actually so poorly specified that none of the browsers can even figure out how to implement them. E.g. in CSS the width of a pixel is defined relative to the length of each user's arm.
- stingraycharles 14y ago
  > CSS the width of a pixel is defined relative to the length of each user's arm. I had to see this for myself to believe it. "The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm's length. For a nominal arm's length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm's length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch)." Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    Seriously, it's pretty messed up. Maybe IE6 didn't actually have a float drop error, it's just that my arms were too fucking long.
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  A lot of the W3C specs are actually so poorly specified that none of the browsers can even figure out how to implement them. E.g. in CSS the width of a pixel is defined relative to the length of each user's arm. Once upon a time the W3C site pointed out that they did not define standards. They offered recommendations with the idea that people would implement them, see what worked (or didn't), and at some point a standards body (ISO, ECMA) would issue the actual standard. However, so many people keep referring to W3C recommendations as standards (mostly as a way to brow-beat people into following one or another preferred practice) that the W3C changed their tune and decided to go along for the ride. Instead of seeing W3C TRs as the last word we would be better served if people viewed them as (likely) incomplete works-in-progress on the way to ironing out well-defined standards.
- 14y ago

by gioele 14y ago

grimboy 14y ago

Yes, but apart from good specs fixed in stone, XML, XSLT and WCAG, what have the W3C ever done for us? (It was a Monty Python reference.)

bkardell 14y ago
Specs are good, but they really aren't quite fixed in stone, things reach and then leave rec status. CSS 2.1 spent like 13 years going in and out of different statuses and only very recently appears to have been "completed".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
brudgers 14y ago
But which shoe should developers follow?

drhowarddrfine 14y ago

Agree. That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen. I believe the writer is not aware that all browser vendors are members of the W3C and it is they who wrote all those specifications for HTML/CSS/XML/etc. He also seems blissfully unaware that W3C standards are built on implementation by browser vendors, not invention, and the W3C rarely invented anything on their own.

TylerE 14y ago

Yes, W3C is good for having set-in-stone specs 5 years after they've ceased to be relevant.

Alex3917 14y ago

"It has given us good specs fixed in stone you could develop against and be sure that your code could still work in the next decade" A lot of the W3C specs are actually so poorly specified that none of the browsers can even figure out how to implement them. E.g. in CSS the width of a pixel is defined relative to the length of each user's arm.

stingraycharles 14y ago
> CSS the width of a pixel is defined relative to the length of each user's arm. I had to see this for myself to believe it. "The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm's length. For a nominal arm's length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm's length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch)." Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/
- Alex3917 14y ago
  Seriously, it's pretty messed up. Maybe IE6 didn't actually have a float drop error, it's just that my arms were too fucking long.
jamesbritt 14y ago
A lot of the W3C specs are actually so poorly specified that none of the browsers can even figure out how to implement them. E.g. in CSS the width of a pixel is defined relative to the length of each user's arm. Once upon a time the W3C site pointed out that they did not define standards. They offered recommendations with the idea that people would implement them, see what worked (or didn't), and at some point a standards body (ISO, ECMA) would issue the actual standard. However, so many people keep referring to W3C recommendations as standards (mostly as a way to brow-beat people into following one or another preferred practice) that the W3C changed their tune and decided to go along for the ride. Instead of seeing W3C TRs as the last word we would be better served if people viewed them as (likely) incomplete works-in-progress on the way to ironing out well-defined standards.
14y ago