molly.com
Saturday 11 August 2007
Dear W3C, Dear WaSP
Having been given the odd task of coming up with Technical Plenary material for the W3C, it strikes me not simply a blow but a full knock-out when my colleagues either don’t respond or merely suggest that we let Tim Berners Lee talk about the Semantic Web yet again and let everything in the Web Standards world go on as if the work that you and I do daily didn’t exist.
Fuck that.
Pay attention, W3C and anyone who cares. We have serious problems. On the surface:
- HTML 5 serialization under W3C
- Run Time Environments such as AIR
- Personal agendas overriding agendas that serve the greater good
I call on my colleagues, my friends to talk about this. Oh goodness, and here’s a unique idea. Perhaps the Web Standards Project (WaSP) can stop playing to its own audience and address:
- The future of JavaScript and its standardization under ECMA considering the Adobe/Mozilla relationship, whatever that is, really
- The future of markup - for god’s sake why are we revisiting the lingua franca of the web? Doesn’t WaSP or other standards groups have a serious responsibility to hash this out?
- Moving education forward. There is nothing like teaching people how, because then they’ll go and do. That’s true innovation.
Are you all just dumbed down by the fact you’ve got a job or what? Tell me. Let’s fix it. W3C, WaSP, whatever. We have problems.
Let’s talk about them and figure something out.
Filed under: professional, faith(less), policies, standards, software, web design and development, WaSP, society, w3c, announcement, browsers, innovation, accessibility, javascript, whatwg
Posted by: Molly | 1:40 am |
August 11th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Well said Molly!
August 11th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Amen to that!
August 11th, 2007 at 4:54 am
In The Netherlands we started a Guild of Front-End Programmers. One of the main activities at the moment is to have better education at “multimedia” studies on this part. I’m member of the education group, and we have some nice plans on this topic.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:04 am
One word springs to mind: Complacency
Molly, I think your question ‘Are you all just dumbed down by the fact you’ve got a job or what?’ is quite possibly a big part of it…there just seems to be a sort of step-backwards about the whole thing. Your opening paragraph to this post makes me feel disappointed for you - it’s all seems very, very wrong.
It’s tragic that all the great work done in the past is slowly starting to become little more than a nostalgic golden-era for some people in the Web Industry right now. Is it also coincidence that there were numerous articles posted on the blogsphere earlier this year suggesting the apparent demise of the Web Standards movement altogether?
The big one here, IMO, is the ‘future of markup’ (as you put it) and I’d include HTML 5 with that - it’s just not going anywhere, and not in the right direction fast enough. Complacency once more…(or too much indecision?)
Unfortunately, I’m not on the W3C or a member of WaSP, so all I can do is rant a bit and hope someone listens - but I dearly hope that those who can do something…start to get on with it.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:20 am
“Are you all just dumbed down by the fact you’ve got a job or what?”
no…frustrated is probably more apt a term. i’m currently trying to fight the good fight on at least two fronts (getting people like Tantek to even at least aknowledge that, as evidenced, there is a problem here and now with the way certain microformat patterns are causing pages to become unusable, nay inaccessible, to certain types of users, and the lengthy to-ing and fro-ing on the HTML5 mailing list, where a large vocal group - of WHATWG members? - is making arbitrary decisions to drop well established features, while at the same time peddling new elements and attributes that’ll make their agend of Web Apps easier to code/implement). on both these fronts, despite concerted efforts, there seems to be such a strongly entrenched attitude by the autocracy of the groups that it feels like we’ve firmly turned the clock back to a time where “accessibility” was an alien concept…
…so, i’ve opted to divert my more immediate attention to the grassroots evangelism, talking to people who don’t seem set on pushing their agenda with blinkers on.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I would agree with Matt. I think it’s complacency.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Holzschlag–
Ain’t easy being a Lone Ranger, huh. Well, one riot, one ranger.
Have given this some thought since the concept of the ‘broken web’ was discussed awhile back. The Web is not broken, these standards groups are, however.
For what it is worth, the opinion from an old jarhead and one who is an outsider looking in:
http://boinkinchipmunks.com/web/articles/broken.aspx
The solutions will not be easy. Frankly, I do not believe they will ever be affected. Just too many short sighted self serving egotists.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I second patrick’s comment. Frustration.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:54 am
I think personal agendas and “not admitting there’s a problem” are going around at the moment, like a virulent flu.
I think it’s bad that the industry doesn’t seem to like admitting there are some serious problems right now. Not least is the fact that accessibility is dropping by the wayside in the rush to ajaxify everything and “optimise” for iphones.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
What do these names have in common?
Tina Holmboe
T.V. Raman
Patrick Lauke
Jukka Korpela
Roger Johanssen
They are just 5 well know web accessibility advocates who have all but given up on trying to work with the autocratic, semi-secret society known as the WHAT-WG, who allegedly were invited “back into the fold” by none other than TBL to work on the next generation HTML - HTML5. What many people might not realize however is that there appears to be some work happening in parallel - with two mailing lists, two drafts, and seemingly two agendas.
Like Patrick, I am both amazed, dumb-founded and seriously concerned about how the WHAT-WG members seemingly are turning back the clock, jettisoning and discarding hard-fought for-concepts (that increase accessibility), and dumbing down the markup language to the point that there is even a proposal to make the @alt attribute optional. Their mantra? Pave the cowpaths.
Make no mistake, there are some interesting ideas and new concepts coming from this work, but equally there is a sense that if the ideas did not originally come from the core cabal of WHAT-WG, it is discarded or pushed to the back. There is a perceived (or real?) conflict of interest in the fact that the Chair of the HTML5-WG is also a working member of the still intact WHAT-WG, who seem to be continuing on their own merry way, whilst work on HTML5 has yet again seemingly ground to a halt. The difference between the 2 groups? HTML5 requires broad consensus, whereas WHAT-WG operates in a semi-secret state of IRC discussions and mailing list, where “inner-circle” members make snide and demeaning comments regarding accessibility issues and “smell-o-vision”. [http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070701#l-217]
Molly, I agree whole-heartedly, it’s time for us to get off of our collective duffs and start doing something. It’s time that WASP became involved in the HTML5 process, it’s time that the people who read your blog get actively involved in what is going on. Wake up and act, before it’s too late!
As for the W3C? I urge them to take immediate steps to either have the WHAT-WG disbanded and have *ONE* working group, or else jettison those members who continue to allegedly work on both drafts: there can be only one formal draft, and for the sake of our industry, it must be inclusive, standards based, and sanctioned by the the only Standards body we really have - the W3C. Anything else is pure folly.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Thank you, Molly for the timely post. Like Patrick and Roger said.
It’s frustration.
It’s disillusionment.
It’s a deep sense of knowing things are headed in a bad direction.
Some of us are trying to fight the good fight. But, Molly, WaSP, and all people concerned with accessibility/best practices please know HTML 5 needs your help, desperately.
August 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Glad to see I’m not the only one fed up with the WHATWG’s arbitrary philosophical principles and semi-secretiveness. The WHATWG seems incapable of talking to anybody outside their group - whether it’s the accessibility people or the SemWeb people (the battle over GRDDL and the profile attribute is what leads me to banging my head against the table on an almost daily basis - because it means all the work I am doing may end up being utterly worthless).
August 11th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
patrick h. lauke and others mention frustration, which I can sympathize with, with a couple of caveats.
1. There is a backlash going on against “advocates” of various past technologies/efforts which have been based more on “evangelism” by “experts” rather than well documented use-cases, real world examples, evidence, economic benefits etc.
Since smaller/simpler is better in technologies such as languages, data formats, protocols etc. the burden of proof in the development of things like microformats, or even the WHATWG’s HTML5, is placed on those who want to add (or even keep) features.
2. Too many ad hominem attacks and too much name-calling. e.g. quoted from above:
* “with blinkers on” (I think he meant to type “with blinders on”, apologies it that’s not what was intended, and if so, then I do not understand the reference to “blinkers”.)
* “autocratic”
* “semi-secret society”
* “turning back the clock”
* “core cabal”
* “continuing on their own merry way”
* “semi-secret state”
Please drop the ad hominem attacks and name-calling. It is counterproductive at best, and divisive at worse. I know that when I see feedback or input from someone who uses ad hominem attacks, name-calling or other negative, inflammatory, or downright trollish language, I tend to filter it out, because I have plenty of feedback and input from those who are participating in a much more positive tone (without sacrificing scientific accountability).
Bottom line(s): increase the civility of your discourse (while remaining scientifically critical of course), or risk being ignored.
If you choose to cling to the use of negative language, your frustration rests on your own shoulders, and frankly, deservedly so.
August 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Çelik–
Perhaps what is considered as “ad hominem” attacks are simply down to earth pragmatic characterizations based upon perception and performance.
It seems to come from a lot of varied sources. Maybe a hard look at why that is would be in order?
August 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
tantek, you chose to ignore both the problem and constructive attempts at finding a solution from the start, it would seem…once again, in stark contrast with the “technology that works in the here in and now” credo of microformats themselves. and as for being scientific: how scientific was your (the group’s, not necessarily you personally) method when deciding to (ab)use the ABBR pattern in a manner that, for anybody involved in screen reader accessibility, seems counter-productive? i seriously question your strongly held belief that you can storm ahead with a solution, but that the burden of proof is then on us to demonstrate why it’s a bad idea - why is the “inventor” exempt from scientific accuracy?
August 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
thacker, from a scientific perspective, yes, a hard look at all feedback is in order.
However, from economic (time) perspective, and a community health (discouraging trolls, encouraging a positive community experience) perspective, it makes sense to prioritize such a “hard look” at “ad hominem” attack LOWER than processing positive/scientific feedback, so as to encourage more positive/scientific feedback than negative/emotional/trollish feedback.
When positive/scientific feedback comes in faster than feedback can be processed in general, the end result is that negative/emotional/trollish feedback is ignored due to its lower priority.
So yes, folks might *eventually* get around to looking at negative/emotional/trollish feedback and dig through it for the actual points being made, but not everyone has the luxury of sufficient time to do so, and thus it is the responsibility of those giving feedback to improve the tone of their message(s) if they wish their input to have an impact sooner.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
patrick h. lauke, I certainly appreciate your raising of rational questions. In order to increase the chance of them being answered/resolved sooner than later, and somewhere that more folks can find them, I encourage you to add each of your questions as a separate issue on the microformats wiki, in particular on this page:
http://microformats.org/wiki/accessibility-issues
Thanks,
Tantek
August 11th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Çelik–
I am afraid you are missing the point. Why do these characterizations exist in the first place. Discard trying to resolve the perception via any scientific analysis. Step back away from the detail of the tree bark, step far away and ask yourself what is the market telling you.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
thacker, it appears you may have missed my points. reread my previous response to your comment: more efficient use of time and encouraging better communities *is* the point.
I encourage everyone to deprioritize following-up with trolls (”these characterizations”) regardles of why they exist, for the above-explained reasons. You don’t need to know why trolls exist in order to conclude that ignoring them (and banning them if they persist) is the best response for community health.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Çelik–
Knowingly or not, you have just answered a significant question that may have been one of the things that prompted Holzschlag’s post.
A leadership and management change of these standards oriented groups is drastically needed.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
thacker, if you think change is needed, then rationally making your case for change, by documenting specific issues, based on specific real world examples (as Molly did in her post), and perhaps even the specific changes you think are needed, would help your case for change drastically.
Alternatively, if you don’t think you can cause change in any current such groups (a frustration I personally have had in the past and thus feel I can speak to), I encourage you to start your own group and community to do so, and then wait for the market to decide which group(s) to pay how much attention to based on their respective merits.
WaSP was started for just those reasons. As was microformats.org. As was WHATWG. And each of those has clearly had an impact on the market as well as the Web.
August 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Çelik–
That was done. I asked you to simply step away and ask yourself what is the market telling you with all these characterizations. That suggestion was immediately discounted. You spoke volumes without speaking a word. What was not said, is at the root of the problems with all of the standards oriented groups.
Years ago, Jack Welch, right before he assumed management control of General Electric, was asked two questions. One, what is your market telling you. Two, now, what are you going to do about it.
Welch answered those two general questions asked of him by Peter Drucker. Throughout his tenure, he kept answering them. As a result, General Electric went through the greatest renaissance in its history. Some would say the greatest renaissance of any company in history.
But then, some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand the parallels. It is simply not well focused enough for understanding. It does not fall within the boundaries of the benefits of acronym versus that of abbr. Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the proverbial bark. Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame.
August 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Over the last year or two I’ve felt that the W3C is a fair way down the road to irrelevance. They can’t get a spec out in under five years (CSS3…), they give up on their own specifications (XHTML5 is around because support for XHTML 1 is weak? Oh please!), their own specs are no use for real world situations (XHTML2 is not backward compatible? Right, so why would it gain useage? What a great way to devalue XHTML 1 while you’re at it too).
HTML5 is likely to be still-born when it eventually becomes a recommendation - it’s getting pointless elements added (aside? section? pure pseudo-symantics!), good one’s removed - and for what? What incentive is there for anyone to migrate ‘up’ to HTML5? If people won’t use XHTML (as seems to be the use case for HTML5 according to the W3C?), why would anyone use HTML5 instead? I predict HTML4 will be the dominant language of the web for a very long time.
The W3C is too controlled by companies - they have their own agenda and it’s not good for the web. It’s time for a bloody good shake-up, or it’s time for it to be replaced. It’s become a slow-moving dinosaur.
August 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
While I appreciate the back and forth analysis here, I would like to encourage this not fall into the same kind of argument that folks can go have lots of other places. Also, two voices taking over a comment flow will make it more difficult for others to feel comfortable commenting, and the topic gets lost.
I know you all know me well enough to feel confident this is not a personal calling out. It’s simply a practical request because I’d like the circle on this conversation to stay open to may voices. Thanks
August 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hi Molly and everyone,
I have a question that I know is going to be way off this blog topic. But I really need your guys’ help.
I have no idea how to get my submit button to post something on the website just like how Molly has done on this one.
Basically I want the submit button to submit whatever someone writes and then immediately post it on the site.
I know this is not a forum site but a blogging site but I really need your guys’ help and I don’t know where else to turn to.
Thanks in advance!
August 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi Molly,
Could you be more specific about what you think is a problem and why? This call to arms seems quite strident, but yet surprisingly non-specific about what it opposes. As problems and areas of concern, you listed:
* HTML 5 serialization under W3C
Are you against advancing HTML at all? HTML obviously needs to be enhanced to better support modern web applications and web documents, and to improve cross-browser interoperability. If the web as a platform remains fragmented and does not advance, the winners are proprietary runtimes such as Silverlight and Flash.
* Run Time Environments such as AIR
While I personally wouldn’t write any AIR applications, I don’t see how AIR is harmful to the web. It brings HTML+Flash development to the desktop, and is not directly web-deployable. So it doesn’t result in proprietary technologies being deployed on the web, but it does create the potential for using the standard HTML+JS+CSS stack on the desktop. This is in contrast to another notable run time environment, Silverlight, which is a proprietary single-vendor technology that targets web deployment.
* Personal agendas overriding agendas that serve the greater good
It’s hard to comment on this one without any specifics. Obviously it is couched to sound like something no one could disagree with, but whose personal agendas do you have in mind?
* The future of JavaScript and its standardization under ECMA considering the Adobe/Mozilla relationship, whatever that is, really
I think most people would agree that JavaScript, one of the key languages for building web applications, needs improvement. C, C++, Python, Perl, Java and C# have new versions all the time, so it’s not somehow sinister for a programming language to evolve. While we could argue about the details of what is being done with the language, I think FUD about the participants driving the standardization effort is not a productive way to channel it into a good direction. Once again, stopping the advancement of JavaScript only benefits proprietary technologies like Flash and Silverlight that are trying to replace the web.
*The future of markup - for god’s sake why are we revisiting the lingua franca of the web? Doesn’t WaSP or other standards groups have a serious responsibility to hash this out?
This seems to be the same as the first point. But again, how could we possibly not revisit it? Living languages evolve. Stagnant languages die. The big winner, if HTML does not advance, is proprietary technologies.
I hope you can clarify what the problems you see with the web standards process, and ideally participate in the relevant bodies to try to solve the problems that you see. Calling out problems without specifics or proposed solutions is not, in my opinion, a constructive action.
August 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
*** (tongue in cheek - you said the F word!!! lol) ***
I have been concerned for a couple of years about the cult of personality often riding over all else. I long ago stopped reading my web standards group mailing list every day simply because of the 15 or so people who had become specification gurus first and people gurus second (no names mentioned but visit that list and watch someone ask a normal level question - Read the Spec is an easy answer to give in these environments too”.
Anyway what I’m getting at is more to do with the ‘people with their own agendas’ comment being put forward. That is just so friggen true and frustrating! And I have witnessed several high flyers rise from obscurity to majesty. The issue is then they become so enamoured with their own ideals that nothing else filters past their vision, definately no compromise. Education would only enhance some people’s vulnerability that the masses might catch up and make them irrelevant.
OK that’s just a bit of a slightly relevant rant. Feel free to pull this comment off Molly. Its not directed at you but at many ‘big names’ in these debates. I wonder, as probably many do, how much of these decisions are based around personal investment in self stature. I feel great empathy for those looking for a ‘best universal answer’ to problems.
Great idea to post this to the masses from some opinionated kerfuffle too.
August 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
OK my comment was probably a bit unfair and off topic, sorry. Probably better to pull it rather than detract from the direction this is headed.
good luck with it Molly.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Maciej Stachowiak,
please, don’t waste Molly’s or anyone’s time trying to have us think you (especally) don’t know what the problems with HTML5 serializing are. (I can quote from your relevant letters to the HTMLWG, if you so wish.)
Molly,
we are looking forward to hearing WASP’s input on the need for HTML to evolve. We are many who want to see HTML evolved, but who doesn’t understand why this can’t happen without throwing accessibility features into the dustbin - or why that particular side of HTML should not be evolved.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Hi Leif,
I know what I’d like to improve about the process, and I’m working to improve it. I don’t know if Molly is calling for process improvement, specific changes to the spec, or abandonment of the whole HTML5 effort (which she explicitly called for in a past posting).
I hope she is not calling again for the effort to be abandoned, as that would be a disaster for the web. And if she isn’t, then her input on what needs improvement (whether here, or directly to the working group list where she’s been invited multiple times to participate) would be greatly appreciated.
Also, claiming that HTML5 does not evolve accessibility or that it throws accessibility features into the dustbin is simply wrong. HTML5 is taking the same design approach to accessibility as everything else, studying past specifications and existing practice to see what problems need to be addressed, and what the best way to do that is while allowing content to degrade gracefully in older browsers and assistive technologies. I think if you view it in that light, instead of assuming every change to an accessibility-related feature is an attack on accessibility, then you will find it easier to help the process move in a good direction. You might notice, for example, that HTML5 has many new features that will be great for accessibility in the long run - the document sectioning algorithm, built-in semantic elements for common web controls, the element, etc.
August 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
“HTML5 is taking the same design approach to accessibility as everything else…”
I have read this comment, re-read it, and read it yet again.
I still come away with the feeling that accessibility is seen as a component that can be added later.
I don’t think I have to elaborate on the fallacy of this reasoning.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Maciej,
You ask many fair questions. I’m on a fact finding mission at this point and cannot honestly tell you that I know what the answers are. What I do know is there is a community up at arms and that’s getting worse - not better. What I do know is that there are clearly people who are so frustrated with the process that they are becoming angry and bitter not only toward each other, but toward the Web’s reality and promise we should so dearly love.
What I do know is there’s a group, WaSP, which can and in my opinion should be studying the precise issues that are raised both by me and you and so many others and helping sort through these concerns. However, I’m sad to say that except for a few individuals who continue to work their magic individually, WaSP has been largely inactive during a time when it is in critical need of being active. Remember, I’m in emerita status at WaSP and no longer participate. So all I can do is call on my current colleagues there for action from over here on my soapbox.
Insofar as being ON the HTML WG, I am reserving judgement on participation in that chaos. I follow the conversations and that is enough on my plate right now as battles of that magnitude must be chosen carefully. I do this in order to avoid the kinds of stresses that precede physical and mental health issues. Clearly, that alone should send a statement!
I am going to be present and in the HTML WG meetings during the W3C Technical Plenary in November, participating as an independent observer (IOW, no one funds that trip but me, myself and I) and am making the investment of that time and money to see who shows up, how the meeting goes, what people have to say and so forth.
It should be quite fascinating, and I know that it will be helpful for me at that point to make decisions as to where my own future role within the spec world lives. For now, I just want to keep the conversation alive from a perspective external to the W3C and WaSP, and encourage that others do the same.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Are you all just dumbed down by the fact you’ve got a job or what?
Actually, it’s more the opposite–fretting about the immediate issues like how to make the mortgage payment and why no one’s responding to my resumes don’t leave me much time to worry about the theoretical (e.g., ECMA).
:-(
August 12th, 2007 at 4:06 am
That is not how accessibility is being addressed in HTML5 and I don’t think anyone believes it should be. The issue is that people have different perspectives on the best techniques to address accessibility, and some people are failing to see and understand the perspectives of the others.
From my perspective, any feature, including accessibility features, should be critically evaluated according to many different factors, including the benefits to users, ease of authoring, implementation issues and, in the case of existing features, how successful they have been in the past.
Any existing feature that hasn’t been particularly successful, for whatever reason, should be investigated to find out why and we should consider ways to either improve it or replace it with something better. This whole process involves questioning the conventional wisdom and, unfortunately, some accessibility advocates interpret that as an attack on accessibility rather than a desire to improve it.
This miscommunication leads to overreactions, arguments, accusations of attitude problems and a general feeling of dismay and disappointment among everyone involved.
It’s a situation that could be avoided if those from the accessibility community who are getting so angry at those of us from the WHATWG community would calm down, look at the issues from other perspectives and more productively contribute to research. Although it should be noted that a few people have began to do so recently, which is really good, but there are a few who’d rather continue complaining about the situation, than work together to improve it.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:49 am
Molly,
I have to disagree, it is quite plainly obvious everything is going well; and that in this the best of all possible situations, we are all working towards common goals and aims, and that the state of standards within our industry is healthy .
It’s clear that things cannot be different; for everything has a purpose and it must for the best. For instance there is a desire for rich user experience, therefore we build additional run-time environments. Software is difficult to author in current standards, therefore we promote new standards that will be easier. Information is there to be read by machines, therefore we adapt and place machine-only readable content in our pages. Barriers to entry on certain standards are to tough, so we ignore them for the present until software catches up. Peer acknowledgement is important, therefore we create pedestals on which to praise them. Such endeavours can not only be said to be healthy, but to be the best that can be.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:22 am
“Are you all just dumbed down by the fact you’ve got a job or what?”
On a more serious note than Pangloss, I’d have to answer the above question as a yes.
I’d love to join in with Patrick and Roger and be in a state of frustration with things as they currently stand; but I am now in a state of “cannot be ar**d”, with it all as things currently stand. It’s a mess, it is a mess that I don’t believe I’d have any luck in helping to untangle, some from my standpoint of disillusionment why bother - there are more important things to be getting on with.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:46 am
[…] I’ve noticed this over the last say 18 to 12 months, things are changing in the web community. There are still the usual arguments between people and various factional groups. That’s nothing new there. No it’s something more. It’s like a complacency, that we have all fought hard and that the war is over and we can live now in a golden age. The voices of leadership seem to be dropping away, not being as potent or vocal as they once where. Molly Holzschlag has seen it to, and again call people to arms, I seem to remember Molly doing this before recently. […]
August 12th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Maciej, Lachlan, et al.: Explain to us why we need to critically examine the existence of the alt attribute, let alone making it mandatory.
If you’re going by common usage, and since we know, according to Hixie’s own statistics and our own experience, that most Web sites suck, how are you going to avoid simply delisting something as basic as the alt attribute? It’s barely ever used, right?
Now, after all that, explain to us how blind users will be able to understand images.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:47 am
I would strongly advise against trying to argue with Tantek over the inclusion or deletion of absolutely anything. He has a time-tested attitude of knowing with absolute certainty what’s needed and dismissing out of hand any calls for something different. This goes all the way back to my providing evidence for the need for hed, dek, and lede elements to accommodate newspaper semantics. Tantek dismissed that by saying newspapers aren’t using the semantics they’ve already got, so we’re hardly about to give them more. And he defended that onstage in San Francisco in May.
So of course Tantek will never, under any circumstances, even the circumstances he claims will be sufficient, back down from anything. Of course he won’t fix the abbr problem, or admit it exists until you copy and paste your bug report on the one and only forum that may officially host such bug reports.
What *has* Tantek Çelik done for us lately?
August 12th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Clark–
The attitude that you have referenced predominates throughout all of the standards groups and that may be the problem. The problems and solutions are not so much technical in nature as they are philosophical, operational and management issues. Geeks are geeks [not meant in a derogatory sense] but the growth of the Internet, its complexities along with standards evolution have outstripped their skill set to manage it effectively.
I believe that to be the root of many of the issues that are being seen. It includes dependency upon voluntary work product contributions by individuals — that may be too much of an expectation.
It is possibly time to merge these various groups, bring in professional business managers and get proper funding/income in place to support the operations and necessary growth.
By the way, thank you very much for your advocacy and solutions over the years regarding accessibility issues. It is very much appreciated.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Joe, that is exactly the kind of misconceptions I was talking about. We are not against accessibility features! No-one is intending to drop the alt attribute. Evidence to support the inclusion of a feature does not require a majority of sites on the entire web to use the feature properly. The statistics are useful for determining whether or not a significant portion of the web uses it, but that is only one of many factors to consider.
We have significant evidence to support the inclusion of the alt attribute. It is used, and used properly, on a significant portion of web sites. It is not hard, for instance, to find dozens of sites in just a few minutes that use alt reasonably well. We’re aware of the relative ease with which authors can and do add alt attributes. The significant benefits that alt provides for accessibility and even broader universality issues are known and it is well supported in implementations.
Compare that with, for example, the longdesc attribute. At the time the img section was written (well before the W3C began the HTMLWG), we had virtually zero evidence to support longdesc. If I recall correctly, the statistics showed an insignificant portion of sites used it, and even fewer used it correctly. We also had very little information about implementation support for it. So, due to the lack of evidence, it was decided to leave it out at that time until more information was available, and research could be done.
Research needs to be done to determine the best course of action, which will be based on numerous factors. We need to look at why it doesn’t get used or why it gets used wrongly, and consider alternative approaches to either improve or replace the attribute. There are several possible alternatives that should be investigated, of which one or more may end up in the spec. The best approach may indeed be to include it alongside a better alternative. But we won’t know what the best approach is until we have investigated and evaluated all known possibilities.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi Molly,
I think the following article is a good discussion of the problems with the web and talks about how to fix them and is very relevant to this discussion:
http://xhtml.com/en/future/fixing-the-web-1/
F.W.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
If anyone actually makes it all the way down here in the comments…
The war is not won. There is no place for complacency. That much I agree. However, commenting on the issues I do know something about:
(X)HTML 5/WHAT WG is a process not a problem. There are problem areas, such as the need to further differentiate between “paving the cowpaths” and “encourage best practice”, and “author requirements” (a tight set of rules) vz. “browser capabilities” (dealing with bad markup).
Being a teacher trying to promote standards and therefore participating on the mailing list, I have seen great interest from the leading people in WHAT WG, including Ian Hickson, to address these issues in the spec.
I have made suggestions, supported ideas, rejected others and all the while been well received on the list. I simply do not see that there should be any unreasonable bad attitude from the leading people on it (whomever that might be). And I’ve been on the list for a long while now.
ECMAScript 4 is not jeopardised in any way by the Mozilla/Adobe cooperation over Tamarin. That is plain and simple FUD. One can OTOH remember how MS insisted in ECMA on features that they had backwards enginered from Netscape - including bugs! - and had more votes than Brendan/Netscape and won out.
Now Mozilla is actually helping MS out and IE will benefit from Tamarin as well! http://ejohn.org/blog/the-browser-scripting-revolution/
But having TBLK speak about the semantic web does not inspire me… HTML 5 and ECMAScript 4 do! That would be good subjects for your speeches.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Lars Gunther, your comment is most enlightening. Because which list are you talking about? The WHATWG list. However, the process you are talking about is supposed to be going on in the HTMLWG list.
Lachlan said,
Working together. That is what we want. And if you by «really good» contributions refer to some recent ones about TABLE issues, in the HTMLWG, then I agree. It can be hard to reach that far, though, because all these «innocent» questions and questionings from certain WHATWG members. Several not on the inside of the WHATWG community also get the impression that it is settled - because WHATWG settled it. (And WHAWG pressing for publication of disputed documents etc, does in this situation not improve that.) This makes it hard to be productive or creative and hard to feel ownership of the process. At the same time, it is pretty clear that the WHATWG community feels that ownership.
If working together is the goal, then the situation should call for WHATWG to consider if it is doing something wrong. For instance, the mere presence of two lists opens up for doubts and double communication. Like when the WHATWG spokesperson (Ian Hickson) told the WHATWG mailinglist, days after he was also elected HTMLWG editor, that I don’t particularly care if the W3C accepts or doesn’t accept the HTML5 spec. and I don’t have much of a stake in whether the spec is a W3C spec or not. If it wasn’t irresponsible to talk like that in his situation, then I don’t know that that word means.
Challenge (and this is the most important thing I have to say): If the WHATWG really have faith in the HTMLWG process that it initiated, then why don’t (and didn’t) you announce a temporarely closure of the WHATWG mailingslists and IRCs - moving all spec activity to HTMLWG, until you have resolved that you don’t believe in HTMLWG anymore? Put yourself at risk and jump with both feet into the HTMLWG pool! Currently, when things go sour in the HTMLWG, WHATWG continues to work on the spec(!) - with the editor and all - in its own channels. Not only do they own the process, they own the editor as well. And they don’t even try to hide it. There is no other group within the HTMLWG that shares the same privileges. It should be selfevident that this is a praxis that cannot continue. The WHATWG community need to show a more responsible attitude, if working together is the goal. Actually, HTMLWG should demand this to happen, but it would help if you saw it yourself.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
(URL of the Hickson-quote: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-May/011454.html)
August 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I must say I disagree with the opposition to the article about Zeldman. Getting web standards to be recognized by companies, developers, and browser makers is obviously a step in the right direction. And any hindrance that HTML5 is currently experiencing doesn’t invalidate that.
Personally, I don’t see the point of HTML5. HTML 4 was a big improvement over HTML 3.2: better internationalization, better support for style sheets, more structure and less presentation, some of the more questionable things were removed or put in the dust bin of de facto obsolescence, etc. But I really don’t see where HTML5 is better enough. That’s why I’m very interested in web standards, but not so interested in the fate of HTML5. The fact that new initiates into web standards probably won’t here about HTML5 for some time makes it a non-issue for recruitment, in my opinion.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hi Molly,
You’re still investigating - fair enough. However, calling out problems without being able to articulate what the problems actually are runs the risk of making the situation worse.
Personally, having observed the process from the inside, I would say that the problems in the HTML WG are more matters of misunderstanding and culture clash as separate communities come together, than of technical substance. That’s bad from a process and community perspective. But trying to work together in good faith has a tendency to overcome differences in community culters with time.
I would say the problems in the ECMAScript group are mainly a matter of Microsoft’s fears that the standards-based web will become a stronger platform (a fear that goes back to the original browser wars) combined with a fear of falling behind in implementation on the one hand; and perhaps a bit of spec bloat and second system effect from Mozilla and Adobe on the other hand.
That being said, I think talks about HTML5 and ECMAScript 4 would be great topics for the Technical Plenary. Maybe you could ask Ian Hickson, Brendan Eich, or other appropriate experts from those communities to speak about those topics.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
[…] For those wishing to peer at the spectacle of the great and the good in the world of coding accessibility having a row about personalities and group dynamics, a read of Molly Holzschalg’s blog at the moment will prove extremely enlightening. […]
August 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Maciej,
Again fair points but perhaps the point of the exercise is missed? This is a call to the W3C and WaSP and the web workers of the world many of whom are clearly not paying attention when the very soul of their work and future are in their own hands. The examples cited are just that - examples of topics that should be being addressed by the larger groups and not just self-contained inside private, behind-the-wall discussions that are going on around *every* issue I’ve raised.
All,
As for the comment above regarding Zeldman, his work on standards activism via WaSP ended in 2002. That’a five years ago. It isn’t a snipe against Zeldman, or against Clarke for posting it - which he did in lieu of NOTHING ELSE BEING THERE ON THE HOME PAGE of relevance with any timeliness. THAT is the issue, that the one group who can and should be addressing these questions are not, at least not publicly.
If discussions like these are truly counterproductive, I am happy to shut the fuck up you know. It’s not like I’m not risking my own life, money, time and passion to keep the integrity of something I love alive. If that’s just going to end up an exercise in futility, which perhaps is something I need to just admit, well then at least allow me the dignity to do it my own way. It’s not like I’ve just sat around with my finger up my nose for the entirety of the Web’s life. And WTF should I end up having to defend myself for that after so many contributions to this industry?
Maybe the lesson is simply this. Web Standards Aren’t. And they probably won’t be in my lifetime. Maybe it’s time to put my energy, talent and intelligence toward something else, because the Web as I knew it and loved it is becoming a dark and ugly place.
I’m very sad to see so many people I respect unable to work together and it be blamed on “process.” It isn’t process. This is personal agendas gone too far. My agenda remains the same: To encourage an open platform that is user, user agent and platform agnostic.
That battle may already be lost, and my frustration may just be the result of not willing to let go of something I really put my heart, my soul, and my being into in the belief that this Web, the potential, was something that could bring people together rather than tear them apart.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Molly,
The W3C and the web standards community are suffering from too many cooks in the kitchen. I say ditch the tried and failed method of “design by committee”, put some smart people into a room, pay ‘em what they’re worth and get moving!
Waiting around for a bunch of part time hobbyists to inch a “recommendation” forward over 7 years (yeah, CSS) is insanity when a product’s life-cycle on the web is measured in weeks.
It’s a sad reality, but it is the reality that democracy is not the answer to making and advancing standards. A select (smart) few need to put it together and the rest of us need to just shut up and follow.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
“This is a call to […] the web workers of the world many of whom are clearly not paying attention when the very soul of their work and future are in their own hands.”
Alright then, is there an informative article about the history and state of the discussion, about the persons, interest groups and coalitions involved? What about journalism? For me, it is a little hard to see the facts among the sideswipes of the actors. Initiate me. A less dramatical voice should do — except if you have reliable information that the web falls into darkness within the next two days.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Ingo:
If you expect ME to be “less dramatic” you’re barking up the wrong blog.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
In the WaSP International Liaison Group (ILG) I see a lot of competent people acting on a local level. Perhaps we need to better communicate about those achievements, but we are working on a multilingual website for the ILG for that purpose.
Personally I’m content with what ECMA Script, JavaScript, and the DOM has to offer and is timely extended in W3C specifications such as XMLHTTPRequest or ElementTraversal.
I’m carefully watching the progress of WCAG 2.0, XHTML 2.0, and HTML 5.0 (in my opinion bloated by redundant new elements), I even subscribed to their lists, but I don’t have the time to participate in lengthy email arguments. I’ll file bug reports when they get to Last Call status, and I’ll try to come up with Techniques for WCAG 2.0.
In the meantime I try to network with cooperative people because I think that will bring us forward eventually.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Maciej is right in saying “calling out problems without being able to articulate what the problems actually are runs the risk of making the situation worse.” I have asked about the problems, and yes, the answer should be without “end of the world” rhetoric. Would be easier to go to war if one knows what he should fight against.
“you’re barking up the wrong blog”
Impolite, but effective.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:14 am
I would like to suggest that it is easy to confuse “drama” with “passion.” Drama is an exaggerated but FALSE expression. Passion might appear exaggerated, but there’s nothing false about it.
And there is nothing false about how I feel, and clearly, the mere expression of concern about these topics has caused a lot of unpleasantness here.
This is a rare experience for me, to see people - many of whom are long-time colleagues and friends met, others readers or occasional visitors, be so snicky toward each other on my site.
I am leaving this conversation up and encourage positive discussion to continue. I’m taking a deep breath now, and I hope any additional discussion will be productive.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:07 am
[…] Then to read Molly’s recent post about the state of our industry and community, I became even more despondent, as I remembered how the microformats community and WHATWG are behaving like cabals in their self-interested refusal to acknowledge the accessibility issues with that they’re doing; and how so many of their leading lights are utterly refusing to accept this. By mid-morning I had my head in my hands, sighing, there’s absolutely no point to anything. […]
August 13th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Molly,
On #whatwg various people (including me) commented that they don’t understand your point. Could you please clarify what problem you see with HTML 5 and what would need to be done to address your concern? Right now, this post seems to add to the discord.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Berners-Lee:
I hope you are following this blog post and thinking about the morass that exists. I believe you are the only individual who has the ability to get these issues resolved.
It is a time to stand up and lead. There is not a business school in this world that would not be very receptive to meeting with you, offer advice, input, resources and solutions. I am sure the same applies to any investment bank.
Personally, in five years or less, I do not wish to be reading a postmortem on the opportunities missed and the failure of the W3C.
Looks like a nice day in Cambridge, today. Would be a good day for a short drive to Soldiers Field, Boston.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I don’t understand the rationale for HTML5.
I don’t see a need for it. I don’t what problems HTML5 addresses. I don’t understand why the W3C see’s XHTML and HTML as being two different animals. I don’t understand why the W3C is resurrecting a fundamentally broken language instead of pushing XHTML usage properly. I don’t understand the weird way of specifying HTML5 that allows for such preposterous debates as the inclusion of the alt attribute. It’s useful, it’s used, where’s the debate? Why is the onus on people to prove it’s used? Keep it and have done. Why isn’t the onus on the person trying to change the existing HTML4 specification to establish why an attribute is harmful? Why is old, old ground having to be fought over again, and again, and again? How does introducing another tag-soup language help the web? Why are the people that can’t be bothered to move to XHTML going to be bothered to move to HTML5?
Wouldn’t the W3C’s time be better spent pushing XHTML to the people that haven’t yet embraced it - rather than tarting-up an old and broken language for lazy developers to use in the same lazy and broken way?
August 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Lets just let the browser makers go at it again….let them release new ‘features’ and tags they think folks will like. Then, in a year or two, we can figure out which ones are really useful and add them into the spec.
Obviously, the new way isn’t working.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Wow, someone finally taking a stand.
- slr
August 13th, 2007 at 11:20 am
[…] Henri Sevonin asks the following lucid question amongst the chaotic discussion on this site recently: On #whatwg various people (including me) commented that they don’t understand your point. Could you please clarify what problem you see with HTML 5 and what would need to be done to address your concern? Right now, this post seems to add to the discord. […]
August 13th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Comments to this thread are now closed (although ping/trackbacks are still welcome) and you are encouraged to respond to the follow up discussion, Dear WHAT WG and HTML 5 WG. Thanks everyone!
August 13th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Fear of AIR
Fear of AIR: Do you see potential risks from the Adobe Integrated Runtime? Reason I ask is that both Asa Dotzler and Molly Hozschlag showed concern about AIR recently, and I couldn’t quite get to the roots of their complaint. I suspect that both were …
August 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
[…] 13th, 2007 · No Comments After Molly H.’s Call To Action and follow up post (read them) on her blog, I startedwondering what the Web Standards Project (WaSP) actually does. I’m not saying this to be mean. I’m genuinely curious. […]
August 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
[…] This post from Molly about HTML5 and the W3C, and the resulting comments, illustrate very well why the process of making or improving standards is so ugly, and why I don’t participate anymore. Discussions are dominated chiefly by people who have time to dominate discussions, which over time includes fewer and fewer of the people who actually should. This is not unique to technology, the same problems occur in politics, especially local. Open Source has the same problem and can usually survive it through things like rapid iteration, plugin systems, benevolent dictators, and easy forking. However I don’t know if those concepts could be successfully applied to a standards process, almost by definition. « Tumble-Hybrid Comment » […]
August 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
[…] Keith Bowes, in a recent comment on Molly’s blog, says: Personally, I don’t see the point of HTML5. HTML 4 was a big improvement over HTML 3.2: better internationalization, better support for style sheets, more structure and less presentation, some of the more questionable things were removed or put in the dust bin of de facto obsolescence, etc. But I really don’t see where HTML5 is better enough. […]
August 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
[…] In his keynote, Chris will examine the state of the web, some of the problems facing browsers (as Platform Architect of the Internet Explorer browser) and standards (as co-chair of the HTML Working Group) and explore what we need to do together to move the web forward. This is very very timely in the context of the current state of HTML, about which there is a great deal of debate and no little controversy in some quarters. It’s a privilege to be able to get the low down from someone so tremendously experienced and deeply involved in making the web what it is today, and in helping shape what it will become. […]
August 15th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
[…] What exactly is the crisis in web standards? People assure me there is one. But they can’t be bothered to explain. […]
August 15th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
[…] There’s people like Molly trying to move the gigantic W3C boat, but it’s not really happening. There’s the HTML5 mess, there’s CSS drafts taking years, and there’s people getting pissed off. […]
August 15th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
[…] There’s people like Molly trying to move the gigantic W3C boat, but it’s not really happening. There’s the HTML5 mess, there’s CSS drafts taking years, and there’s people getting pissed off. […]
August 15th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
[…] There seems to be a rumble amongst the big name advocates on this very subject. Partly brought about by the “Dear W3C, Dear WaSP” post by Molly. I saw this trickling through my feeds even before I reached Molly’s blog. Jeremy Keith’ s post was the first and others followed, while Patrick Lauke and Tantek Çelik slugged it out in the comments of Molly’s blog. […]
August 16th, 2007 at 12:37 am
[…] Jeffrey Zeldman answers Molly Holtzschlag. […]
August 16th, 2007 at 3:38 am
[…] Zeldman är cool och analyserar den synbarliga turbulens som frodats den senaste tiden på ett lysande sätt i inlägget “What crisis?” One day, people from nice homes may forsake XHTML for HTML 5, making us wonder what that XHTML pony ride was all about anyway. Or not. If HTML 5 bombs, we’re not so badly off with the markup specifications we have. Remember this. It may help you sleep at night. If HTML, CSS, or accessibility go seriously astray (and depending on who you ask, at least two of these are in trouble), we will still be able to use HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, CSS1 and 2.1, ECMAScript, the DOM, and WCAG 1.0 (with our without reference to the samurai errata) when Britney has grandkids. […]
August 17th, 2007 at 9:43 am
[…] Molly and Molly and Molly, Zeldman, J. Keith, James Edwards all wrote about it. Now if Tantek and Henri Sivonen can join in with a blog post, this superstar meme would be complete. […]
August 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
[…] I’ve been lost over the last few days trying to understand the differing opinions on the status of the next generation of HTML code. Molly, who I’ve had the good fortune to meet and whose opinion I respect, raised the alarm about the state of the W3C development. Jeffrey Zeldman whose article “To Hell With Bad Browsers” kicked off the movement for standards-based web development doesn’t see a crisis at all. […]
August 20th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Spätsommerliches Sammelsurium
Meine Schonzeit ist zu Ende. Leider! Es haben sich doch einige interessante Artikel und Tipps in meinem Feed-Reader gesammelt. Auch auf die Gefahr hin, dass ihr sie alle schon kennt, werfe ich hier einmal ein paar interessante Sachen zu den Themen CSS…
August 20th, 2007 at 6:30 am
[…] While the debate may have been smoldering under the surface, the post that [more or less] caused the blaze to ignite was Dear W3c, Dear WaSP by Molly E. Holzschlag, in which she states: Pay attention, W3C and anyone who cares. We have serious problems. On the surface: […]
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
[…] En pleno debate sobre si existe crisis o no sobre estándares web -los del futuro-, le toca el turno al arte y ciencia de CSS gracias a CSS Sculptor, un producto-extensión de Dreamweaver desarrollado por Eric Meyer que incorpora y automatiza las mejores prácticas del momento en la creación de layouts. […]
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
[…] While the the W3C seem to be taking forever to implement new web standards and seem happy sitting on their butts forever without moving forward. Here are a bunch of CSS 3.0 proposals that Web Designers would go nuts over if ever they are implemented. I give them time till 2999 to implement them, at the rate things are going in the W3C. I saw the original post here on anieto2k blog but since I don’t understand what language it is written in, I decided to translate it. By the way Opera 9.5 has full support for CSS 3.0 […]
August 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
[…] There has been a recent surge of commentaries on the W3C over the past few weeks. Jeffrey Zeldman, Jeff Croft and Molly have all weighed in on this and have sparked a flurry of commentary. Here’s a one sentence summary of each post: […]
August 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
[…] In mid-August, things got, to say the least, a bit heated, and I think it all originated with Molly’s Dear W3C, Dear WaSP post. Later, it was followed by Roger Johansson’s re-entry into the W3C HTML Working Group. I must say that I sincerely admire and look up to Molly’s passion, and I’m glad that Roger, while more calm, decided to continue contributing. […]
September 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
[…] 11 de agosto 2007 - Molly E. Holzschlag escribe a sus queridos W3C y WASP […]
September 16th, 2007 at 4:42 am
[…] There is some turbulence in the web standards group, and a lot of designers and developers I respect and admire are part of it. Molly Holzschlag’s call to fix problems with the future of markup and Javascript got a lot of the community members together. She has also followed up it with the explicit issues, addressing the working group. […]
September 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
techniques to write newspaper articles
October 4th, 2007 at 11:49 am
[…] Nos cuenta que cuando inventaron CSS no pensaron que fuera a durar tanto, sino que era una solución temporal para los problemas de la época y esperaban que por ahora tuviéramos algo mejor. La realidad es que el Consorcio ha tardado unos 5 años en pasar de CSS 1 a CSS 2; parece que la evolución a CSS 3 va a ser un poco más rápida, pero no puedo sino pensar en las críticas que ha recibido el Consorcio por parte de los que un día fueran defensores míticos del mismo, como Molly, o Zeldman y otros en menor medida, en cuanto al ritmo al que trabajan, el tiempo que tardan los borradores y -en definitiva- el infinito tiempo (sobre todo en Internet) que tardan las soluciones en llegar a los navegadores y finalmente al público. Tampoco hay que olvidar que no todo lo que se desea es posible en la época… ¿Quién no ha deseado tener sombras como un estilo CSS? Pero, ¿desde cuando puede el ordenador medio computar eso en tiempo real? Paralelamente, admiten que no saben a qué dar prioridad en CSS 3, y que se lo tenemos que decir nosotros, la comunidad de desarrolladoras. La impresión que me queda finalmente es que la implantación de standards de facto es mucho rápida que la que ofrecen desde el W3C. Es una lástima, porque los desarrolladores necesitamos algo no proprietario a lo que agarrarnos, y me parece que el Consorcio no es capaz de satisfacer esta demanda en un tiempo razonable. […]
December 14th, 2007 at 9:35 am
[…] The W3C aren’t the be all and end all though. They have their own set of problems. Anyone can publish their own ideas about how best to move the internet forward (For example, MS’s old version of the CSS box model was much better than the W3C’s!). That’s the idea behind an open internet. […]
January 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
talking alarm clock
Love them or hate them, alarm clocks are a necessary part of life
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Masturbatin With Girls
Masturbatin With Girls
June 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Real and fake testosterone.
Hydroxyurea testosterone. Testosterone supplement. Testosterone gel. Cause of low testosterone. Testosterone.