[thelist] Re: clarify standards organizations? (long - very long)

jay.blanchard at thermon.com jay.blanchard at thermon.com
Tue Feb 5 08:55:00 CST 2002


Perhaps I came off a little differently than expected when I asked about
the "extension of which large corporation(s)". I should have
explained  more clearly. And Bev, my apologies if I have slighted you in
any way. Let's summarize....

It was asked what could be said to convince a group of coders to adhere to
currently accepted recommendations rather than writing code that was
considered deprecated. "If you try to use valid code in your project- why
do you do so?" - Shoshannah

Answers included "futureproof, accessibility, portability, maintenance
issues, tell them the tale of how MSN got shouted down recently for
blocking other browsers from accessing it's site (exclusion), writing valid
code will send a clear signal that browsers need to be compliant in their
handling of what we code, if they're only coding for IE5, they're limiting
themselves, which is not something I'd recommend. Yes, IE5 may have the
major market share right now, but as Ben Henick mentioned, Netscape had the
major market share awhile back and they no longer do, etc.".

Then another thread was born where it was confessed, "I confess to testing
sites in too few browsers and I don't often bother to validate my code,
even though I know I should, because it just doesn't seem that relevant
right now." Another lamented, "I'm currently developing content for a site
in which several people are coding different portions. The W3C protocols
were mentioned in the beginning, and everyone agreed that writing compliant
code was the goal. <snip> ...a template was agreed upon, pages were coded,
the CSS was ignored, there are font tags all over the place and the
original template was hacked beyond recognition. Sooooo, I'm now in the
process of shaking the bugs out of all the code."

Then it was noted that some of the web sites where some of the
recommendations are touted as being the 'bee's knees' (i.e. the ISO site,
Bobby) don't validate to currently acceptable standards. Funny? Yes! Sad? Yes.

I wrote my 'Different POV' based on the fact that I work for a company
whose ISO 9001 registration is very important. While the web site(s) are
but one small part of the overall portion, they QA people insist that
documentation and some sort of standards (in this case in the form of W3C
recommendations) exist. They also expect that I code according to that
documentation and makes notes as to why there are deviations (such as the
body tag changes to accommodate NN). My particular rant was that
documentation was needed and most did not perform it and that
recommendations (or standards) make for a solid foundation on which to
build documentation. Reading the map is a lot easier when you know what the
keys are, if you know what I mean. And yes....I have started assembling the
articles(s) about documentation.

Then someone wrote that we code for browsers, not for standards. Job
security? Only because browser manufacturer's feet are not held to the
fire, because there are no standards...only recommendations. When Netscape
was on top we all learned tables (a proprietary set of tags at that time,
which were just barely on the recommendations radar when the version of NN
that supported tables came out). Now tables are out because CSS is on the
map and tables are no longer, well.....cool.

Bev came in with, "The fact that small businesses are excluded from
standards groups by the
mere fact that the way the standards groups are organized and the price for
membership is so high,  not to mention the prudish attitudes of many of the
standards group leaders..." Her primary concern was "exclusion". And
'membership' begets 'extension'. Many posted the link to the members list
of W3C as a response to my question.

"..the W3C does not go to any great lengths to recruit the efforts of small
businesses,  educators or contractors in the development of their standards..."

a. W3C is not a standards group, they provide recommendations. They do not
recruit, nor should they have to recruit. Intelligent members of the web
development community seek them out and participate at many, many levels.
Many educational facilities have membership in the W3C.
b. No one is excluded from membership, but the cost may be beyond some.
c. You may still participate in the W3C without being a member. There are
many public lists which allow participation by non-members.
d. How about IETF, http://www.ietf.org ? A little more on the networking
side of the issue, but worth perusing. No cost for membership, just some of
your time is needed. There are links here to many other groups which work
to further Internet technology. Or ECMA (the JavaScript people),
http://www.ecma.ch .

I guess my final points on this can be summed up like this;

Standards (or recommendations in the case of W3C) aren't perfect, but they
give us a place to start.

What does exclusion (if it exist) from the standards process really do to
the overall process? Do you have some tags you'd like to see included in
the recommendation? Do you not want to do something that someone else has
told you is the thing you need to do? Does the organization appear
conspiratorial against small business, education, and others because of its
relationships with corporations/individuals/large research universities who
can afford to pay membership? Do you see mark-up language technology moving
in a direction which may not be favorable?

Have you attempted to participate? Joined a discussion list? Started a
petition to get an 'individual' status position within the W3C at a
reasonable cost? Who is really doing the excluding?

I never said 'you' had to code to the recommendations, I just said that I
had to and document any deviations from a set of recommendations. I also
said that working from a specific reference point makes it easier to do my
job as I do not have to ask myself, "Do I want to use the <font> tag here,
or should I use <h2 class="arial">?" The guy who takes may place will have
a set of guidelines in place in the form of recommendations and
documentation, including the other standardized things that I use to do my
job...a 'qwerty' keyboard, ASP 3.0, an OO/C++ based text editor, a
selection of graphics editing tools that generate .JPEG, .GIF, and .PNG
formatted pictures and representations, x86 architecture based test and
production servers, etc. And the person that follows him, and so on...

So in response to Shoshannah's original question I will repeat what I said
yesterday, "because it is the smart thing to do". I don't give a rat's
petootie if you don't code to recommendations or (just document what you
do). Both of our actions have something to say to the people who organize
the recommendations and to those who follow them. If we all started coding
according to XHTML 1.0 (no matter what the result in everyone's browser of
choice) a browser maker would say, "We need an XHTML compliant browser, and
we need to be first to market with it because all of the developers in the
world have changed everything to XHTML (see, we are not excluded)."

As many said yesterday, it's not about the medium, it's about the message.

Bev, I appreciate your strong POV as I hope (but do not require) that you
appreciate mine. I express no ill will towards you and would be glad to
spring for your beverage of choice at any Beervolt, any time.

Peace,

Jay


A couple of my personal favorites from the IETF index;
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3092.txt?number=3092
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txt?number=2795

<tongue-in-cheek>
prudish \Prud"ish\, a. Like a prude; very formal, precise, or reserved;
affectedly severe in virtue; as, a prudish woman; prudish manners.
prude (prd)n. One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to
be proper, modest, or righteous.

Me? I don't think so. Maybe with regards to documentation and projects
involving groups of individuals where the goal is procedural and/or
technical in nature. But I hate to do documentation.
</tongue-in-cheek>












More information about the thelist mailing list