3 ms·
Meh. Other than the admonition to just go out and develop your app, that's a pretty weak argument. I'd rather have to tweak my sites when the W3C decides to
by pius 19y ago
Meh. Other than the admonition to just go out and develop your app, that's a pretty weak argument.
I'd rather have to tweak my sites when the W3C decides to phase-in a new convention than be forced to do so with every hare-brained browser upgrade that some company does.
Yes, the W3C takes a long time to discuss what casual users think should be trivial. That's largely because they're actually thinking about the semantics and implications of proposed changes, not merely succumbing to feature creep.
Meanwhile, the implication that not all members can make W3C voting meetings is of no consequence whatsoever. If you were so concerned about the direction of HTML or CSS, you could actually get on the appropriate mailing lists and committees. How would you go about convincing IE to, say, drop the concept of "hasLayout" or, for that matter, fix any of the other numerous bugs in their CSS parser?
So yeah, Internet Explorer still sucks. The bureaucracy of the W3C is a complete red herring with respect to that issue.
- hello_moto 19y agoMS would rather not change their codebase at the expense of market lead than to follow the new standard direction. They want to decide their own fate. What makes you think there's definitely ZERO politic in W3C? Semantics? implication of changes? feature creeps? bla bla bla bla bla you'll have Tim Bray. Quit making feature creeps a big issue please. There are two directions for a software such as IE and Firefox: enhance or die. Enhance means more features. Quit adding features = stagnant = die. Take 37signals as an example of "Less is More". Have you actually seen their customer complains? 1 million users.. pfftt, I have 2 inactive (free) accounts there. It's good only for about a week before I ditched them for good.