molly.com
Thursday 31 January 2008
Web Standards Aren’t
After a fantastic day in Perth I ended up talking to a group of oil workers. Men of all classes and walks of life. Scottish, English, Aussie. Tattoos, guys with attitude, heart, and an amazing decency of soul.
An engineer on an oil rig finds a fitting that’s defective. He tells his mates to fix or replace the fitting.
Following manufacturing specs, the person given the task consults the specs, and he builds it just so.
It fits, and will function. If it does not fit, it is not allowed to be used. Those are standards. The products developed meet manufacturing specs world over, and that’s that.
What we have today, on the Web, are not standards in the truest sense. We are at a time in the evolution of the Web where the idea of “standards” is more of a profound misnomer than ever.
Please Define Web Standards
Bet an Aussie dollar you can’t!
Most folks reading this post will say Web standards are markup and CSS, and maybe, just maybe, accessibility.
So what about JavaScript?
If you’re really smart, you raised your hand like Arnold Horschack and shouted out: JavaScript.
Surprise you markup and CSS pedantics, you know, that’s a “standard” too.
Democracy Killed My Grandma
The democratic Web fosters anarchy. That’s not a bad thing per se. I like the idea of anyone having a soap box. It makes for intrigue if not logic.
But professional sites must set some practice that is equivalent to all counterparts. And also supports my Mum when she wants to post a photo.
Don’t you agree?
Context, He Said, Is Everything
There’s a reason that we don’t have standards on the Web, or clearly understand what “standards” really are. The bottom line is it’s not that important.
Web standards aren’t, because democracy demands it.
The grand paradox is that our professional world demands a standard that can be measured and judged. And yet, we need to be free to not be conformists.
Web Standards Really Aren’t
Go ahead, tell me what they are. I know you can’t, because they aren’t. We have specifications, recommendations, implementations and a lot of best practice chatter.
What we do not have is the ace that will fit perfectly in the hole. Web standards aren’t.
It’s time to move on to whatever is next.
Filed under: professional, standards, software, web design and development, WaSP, society, w3c, browsers, microsoft, ajax, innovation, accessibility, javascript, whatwg
Posted by: Molly | 8:28 am |
January 31st, 2008 at 9:05 am
Too bad IE is just too big for democracy.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:06 am
We have specifications and formal W3C recommendations and actual public standards (hello ECMA 262), and collectively we call these ‘web standards’. We all know that a W3C recommendation isn’t an official public standard in the traditional sense. Web standards is the collective term we use for all that technology. To suggest that people reading your site don’t know that is somewhat patronising.
Word games don’t move us forward.
This is why it’s important that browsers follow web standards. If browsers get the implementation right, then a page written using web standards will work. Only when a browser adheres well to standards is it reasonable to start pinning incompatibility problems on web authors. Let he who is without implementation error cast the first stone.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
The Dutch authorities have issued 125 guidelines on accessible, usable ans standards-based web development.
They can be found here : http://webrichtlijnen.overheid.nl/richtlijnen/ .
Maybe this is a good start to define what web standards really are. Unfortunately in Dutch
January 31st, 2008 at 9:15 am
It’s true that in the strictest sense there are no web standards; partly because nothing will blow up and no one will die if a box doesn’t display properly (like this text box on IE 6), and partly because of the early years of the web when a handful of companies tried to take ownership of it by creating their own solutions, some of them good, some not so good.
But what we have, or should have, is a baseline or minimum guidelines to ensure that sites will work adequately for all. Not perfect, we’ll never achieve that, but adequate. So, the issue is not whether these web standards are really real standards but how good they are at keeping us from having to break something to make something else work. The guidelines should not be set impossibly high because everyone should be able to publish on the web, but they shouldn’t be so low that those publications won’t be able to be consumed by everyone.
Have a great time in Australia! Just be careful with the dingos
January 31st, 2008 at 9:21 am
I rather liked the story about the Oil workers. I think that hits it pretty right on. We don’t have a true set of standards, that is correct. But we do need them if we are going create a web that is consistent. I agree that in this case, the standards should not be so restrictive. Not so much, “You can’t do that” as “Here, this is the best way to do that.”
We aren’t there yet. But good people like you, Molly, have at least brought us out of the dark ages of the web. I thank you for that.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:26 am
All true, though as you well know, “web standards” was the term of choice because “web specifications, recommendations, implementations and a lot of best practice chatter” takes too damn long to say even once, let alone a bunch of times.
I’d be very, very surprised if there’s anything waiting in the wings that would be any less chaotic, or even less inconsistent, when used as the basis for a global interactive medium.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:31 am
This is something we talked about at the W3C TPAC. The big reason Web Standards aren’t is because unlike the oil rig fitting, the web can be made to function with parts that aren’t standard.
It isn’t broken enough, for enough of the right people(ie people who make money from the web), for enough people to do something about it.
Billions of dollars get shuffled around the web daily. If the web actually got in the way of that, then we’d be a lot closer to having standards.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:47 am
I don’t know if this post was meant to sound defeatist, but it does.
We’re still in the early days of the web, still experimenting and finding out what’s possible, what’s useful. Rigorous standards at this point would damp down experimentation. Maybe in another ten years the web will be ready, maybe 20, sooner or later we’ll need good solid standards to have an accessible open web. But “whatever is next” *is* proper standards, ISO certified, whatever it takes, when the web is ready.
This whole argument that “my mom” should able to hack web sites is fallacious, does your mom hack postscript every time she uses her printer? No. Nor would she want to. What she needs to upload her photo is flikr, picasa, iWeb (or one of a thousand other alternatives). Those services together with blogger, wordpress.com, myspace, facebook etcetera have done more to democratize the web than the ability to hack together a badly coded web site and have still have it render in a browser ever did.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:48 am
“The grand paradox is that our professional world demands a standard that can be measured and judged. And yet, we need to be free to not be conformists.”
If web development is to be taken seriously as a profession, some of the specifications need to be standards… so I thought. If the web is to have long term sustainability I would think those specifications need to be standards. However, browser makers have shown you only need to follow a sub-set of the specification for the web to work because, after all, HTML is just a dumbed down version of the old document mark-up languages.
The way the web is treated now, being a web professional is more like being an artist than an engineer. Technique and presentation are celebrated with no real processes being formalized and/or standardized. Software engineers need rules, artists need freedom to be creative. I think the IE team specification has been the windows platform and what is good for MS customers. Their rules are based on that first, the needs of others second. Mozilla and others don’t have those pressures so the W3C is their specification.
I think web standards “aren’t” because self interest demands it. Standards don’t stifle creativity in fact knowing what the rules actually are would make it a hell of a lot easier to bend them.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:10 am
@Geert - They’re available in english as well: http://webrichtlijnen.overheid.nl/english/
January 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
Web Standards is a term to provide a useful focus for debate, and to foster good thinking about how we use technology.
That is all they are though. An idea to aid focus.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:34 am
Web standards are a set of tools that we think will help us survive out there.
The internet is an ecosystem.
web sites are going through an evolution process.
Only the best sites will survive.
The survival of the fittest.
The site code is its DNA.
We build the DNA.
We want to give our sites the best chance to survive, so we build the best DNA that we can.
We think we have a set of tools that will give the site a better chance for surviving.
So we don’t have a set of firm standards.
So what?
Can you use your laptop everywhere in the world with just one set of cords?
No.
Why?
Because there is no world wide standards yet.
It takes time to evolve, and we are lucky enough to be here when the standards are set, we are here to help set them.
So is it time to move on to whatever is next?
I don’t think so.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Web Standards are a challenge for everybody at this point. Like any industry, standards take time to be adopted. However, on the internet we’re used to instant gratification. When a new browser comes out, we expect 90% adoption in 72 hours.
Keep in mind that 95% of the users on the web probably don’t give a crap about web standards. Just like I don’t care whether my wireless is 802.11g or 802.11n, as long as it works I’m happy. This goes the same for most web users. That being said, why would a company spend large amounts of cash to update a site (or 100 sites) that already work just fine for 95% of their users? Why would my mom, an average internet user care about Firefox if IE6 works fine?
This doesn’t mean that we should give up on standards in any way, but we need to realize that this is an uphill battle. In every project that I’ve done for the past 3 years, I’ve strived for better web standards implmentations. Every developer I work with usually gets a whole lesson on web standards. I understand that as a web developer/designer, this is part of my role to play.
Web Standards adoption will take time, standards will change, people will resist and there’s nothing that any developer, educator, or vendor (even Microsoft) can do but keep moving forward.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:42 am
A web standard is a solved problem that for the most part we have no need to try and resolve.
So far SGML has proved perfectly adequate as a basic for all web markup, it solves the problem of structuring information for the web (there might be some that argue it doesn’t).
The w3c HTML recommendations are standards in the sense that the majority have agreed that the p tag is a suitable solution for the problem of defining paragraphs. One might argue than an HTML spec is a collection of standards. The standard way of defining a table, of writing a list etc.
The important thing with a standard is that it doesn’t change. An oil rig fitting that is standard today will be standard tommorrow, even if all the other fittings use a newer standard.
I must admit that I’m not entirely sure I understand your point, it’s possible that what we understand as being standards aren’t actually standards, but I’m not sure I agree that there are no web standards.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Molly:
Following Drew McClellan’s line of reasoning, I think you answered your own question. Web standards exist. Proof is in the expectation that when we use web based products, browsers for example, they will produce results compliant to specifications published by some industry body, the W3C for example.
It is the variation in implementation and compliance of these products that cause variation in user experience. The products are not all the same, standards and specifications aside. I work in an industry that requires compliance to ASTM and ISO standards. Our products may or may not be fit for use for any given customer, even if they are compliant to a particular standard.
I think it is good to question whether standards are reasonable or relevant. And, we should continue to push their evolution. I think we can expect web product manufacturers to adhere to standards’ specifications, but I think we also have to expect and cope with variation from product to product. It may be a fine, but it is still a distinct line.
Peter
January 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Looks like M$ has got to you!!
More seriously, web standards give a baseline for creative, flexible web sites, that are cost effective to build, grow and maintain. Why would you not want to support this (ans: because you dominate the web!)
January 31st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
You all need a dictionary.
Look up the word “standard”
Look up the word “convention”
You are talking about conventions and ideals. De facto standards. Not REAL standards.
And the damned funniest thing of it all is someone thinks that this is MICROSOFT talking. That just shows how little people really understand.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just a self-aggrandizing sell out who sleeps with the devil.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
But Molly, is there anything wrong with striving towards a standard or is your point that this is an impossible dream? Too many people have learnt too many bad habits. This is true. Also, the democratisation of trying to achieve a standard will never work.
On an oil rig, will the piece that fits for and Exxon/Esso rig also work on a Shell or BP rig? Are these worldwide standards or company specific standards?
I know that Exxon/Esso works hard on documenting every single aspect of drilling for oil because I worked on just such a document many years ago.
Maybe the answer, for the moment, is to think locally and act globally. Maybe each individual business should document its own standards for the web and hold to those and improve them. Maybe when businesses reach that level there can be an ISO certification for web standards and best practice.
Anyway, we can discuss this more over coffee in Melbourne.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
(Or maybe I meant to say “act locally and think globally”.)
January 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 2001.
Convention: pp226-227. n. 1.A general agreement on social behaviour etc. by implicit majority consent. B a custom or customary practice (it’s a convention that the audience at Handel’s ‘Messiah’ should stand for the Hallelujah Chorus).) 2. conference of people with common interest. 3 a formal agreement, esp. between nations. [Latin: related to convene]
Standard: p1061. n. 1 object, quality, or measure serving as a basis, example or principle to which others conform or by which others are judged. 2 A. Level of excellence etc. required or specified (not up to standard; has very poor moral standards) b. average quality (of a low standard). 3 Ordinary procedure, or quality, or design (of a product), without added or novel features. 4 distinctive flag (of a king, army, etc.) 5a. upright support. b. upright pipe. 6 shrub grafted on an upright stem and trained in tree form (standard rose) 7 tune or song of established popularity. — adj. 1. serving or used as a standard (standard size) 2. of a normal or prescribed quality, type or size (standard uniform; standard light-fitting) 3. of recognised and permanent value; authoritative (standard book on jazz) 4. (of language) conforming to established educated usage. [Anglo-French: related to EXTEND, and in sense 5 and 6 of n. influenced by STAND]
What is not real about “n. 1 object, quality, or measure serving as a basis, example or principle to which others conform or by which others are judged. 2 A. Level of excellence etc. required or specified ”
When we validate pages, ours and others, are we not measuring and judging? Aren’t the recommendations something we aim to conform to?
Surely the recommendations from the W3C and ECMA are authoritative, since without any of them, we wouldn’t have some of the abilities of the current state of the web?
I don’t know about your personal sleeping or relationship habits, but I do know that you are an amazing, energetic, dynamic inspiring woman. Does that make you self-aggrandizing? *looks that up in the dictionary* According to my dictionary agrandising means to increase the wealth and power, so self-aggrandising must mean to increase your own wealth and power. I think then we are all self-aggrandising, and people who call you names like that are just jealous you are more successful than they! Bugger ‘em.
GOOD ON YOU!:)
January 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Holzschlag stated:
Actually, I don’t think Williams said that. But Jesus did.
Seriously, it sounds like you may be looking for a new adventure and a few new ‘proverbial’ windmills to attack. If so, give ‘em hell, Lady. If not, give ‘em hell anyway. If you ever need backup, holler.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Ahh back to the original mistake of calling them “web standards” instead of “best practices” in the first place Molly… I don’t think they were ever meant to be standards in the same vein as ISO. If only we could drop “web standards” from our marketing we’d maybe increase best practice.
Its the term that’s the trouble. Sir, my web ferret ate my web standards this morning in a web analogy
So you’re right, can’t define web standards that easily. They’re something they’re not. Kind of. The W3C don’t release standards, I believe, only recommendations. Its us who call them standards. Its us who fail them as standards, too - we’re the ones (humans in general not us as individuals) who don’t even listen to recommendations.
That being said I strive to maintain best practice wherever possible amongst a sea of competitors tables, font tags and unsemantic jumble. Inevitably some people won’t ever care I guess…
Very insightful post today Molly. Enjoying Australia I see…
ps.. I was posted to HMAS Leeuwin at Fremantle for 9 months from 16 - 17 as a Junior Recruit in the Royal Australian Navy. That means we did our basic training over 9 months and I also did my year 11 at the same time. Officer Candidate School used to be there too but I declined the offer. Its quite empty now with the Army running it so you can walk around, very relaxing. Also Fremantle Gaol has a good tour and the Fremantle Markets are worth a visit too.
Or just sit by the river and relax I guess.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
The real definition of “Web Standards” is more akin to what Eric is pointing out than anything. We co-opted the term “standards” and applied it to something that wasn’t a standard, rather, a series of specifications that are RECOMMENDED practices.
Am I saying stop working to specs? No. Am I saying we’re on the wrong path as we try and build a better Web by increasing education and awareness around specs and best practices - well, if anyone here thinks I mean that you must not have met me or know me too well. Rest assured my heart is right there, I want a better Web, and that means better practices, more education, more resources, more outreach.
I’m challenging the status quo. I’m just asking that you take a look at the SEMANTICS of the situation and not be led into a sense of comfort that we actually have achieved any semblance of a standard. If that were true, all browsers would behave the same way, and my code would be just like your code, and every CMS and development software would be interoperable, use correct nomenclature, and follow the specs.
Is that the Web we have? Clearly not. And as we grow and expand both on the desktop and into mobile devices, these issues become more fragmented, not less.
On a lighter note, I’ve decided to become a Devo rather than a Diva. I’m going to design my new site with frames, tables, spacer gifs, lots of flash embedded into framed pages via iframes. It will validate, pass at least priority 1 accessibility and effective SEO.
The mere fact that I can actually do all that and be in compliance with specs should help clarify my point, I hope.
Thanks for indulging my meanderings, as ever.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
[…] This post emerges from a comment I wrote to the response thread in my “Web Standards Aren’t” post, which I hope will clarify my thoughts a bit as well as take a lighter look at what I’m working to articulate here. […]
January 31st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I’m still thinking about this. What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. IETF releases documents and labels them RFCs (Request For Comments). Are they any less standards because of the name?
I am re-reading and re-reading this blog entry and I can see two different interpretations. Perhaps I am over-analysing
Interpretation one
I think one of the things you are getting at is the white-box development that has been predominant. We develop based on what happens in individual versions of browsers, rather than based on actual semantics of our content. As far as I understand, the ‘web standards’ you are referring to is the separation of development from individual browsers, a more black-box form of development.
I agree that this would be ideal, but there are two different things holding us back from this method. Implementation of the standards in browsers, and understanding by developers. A part of the problem is that the web was built by Computer Science geeks on Computer Science mentality and principles, and the geeks that built it just assumed that everyone knew these principles like they did. And of course, not everyone does.
I think someone should write a book about the principles that the web is based on, in a way that the non-computer science person can easily understand.
Interpretation two
What is a standard? When it is enforced by laws? In that case, WCAG 1.0 level A must be very close to a ‘web standard’ if not already, since many governments insist that government websites meet at least that criteria, and aim for more. Since validation was part of WCAG 1.0, then markup must also be getting close to a ‘web standard’. But does a standard need to be enforceable by law or passed into legislation to be a standard?
Since you are questioning the standards status of markup and CSS, so you must also question the standards status of HTTP, since that is a standard in a very similar sense. Is that any less a standard?
January 31st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
* Oil industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry#Human_history
“The petroleum industry was established in the 8th century…”
1200 years
* Web industry
18 years
In the Oil field, there are all the things which you have seen, and the things you have been unable to see because of the lack of culture. We don’t see everything.
There are many things you can’t do in Web without really breaking stuff. write a link in a href with “w3 . org” instead of “w3.org” it will not work.
If in addition the link is something fundamental related to economy or life of people, then there will be laws from civil society, which would have to be enforced. etc. etc.
There is still progress to do, the Web industry is still really young.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
i could. maybe. but the dollar might not be worth the trouble :p
[i is are an lawyer-nerd. ’standard’ is a thing of beauty. like truth, and love, and puppies.]
thing is, while we have the idea of democracy on the ‘net, in reality there are a lot of people who want their idea of norm to be adopted by everyone else. standard by adoption.
we could have standards that enable flexibility and so forth. but like-as-not it will require a new take on the idea of what a standard is before we can move on. engineering is full of standards that enable them to design, build and maintain the most wondrous things (small things like measurement systems - though not perfect: consider the space shuttle and the mars lander debarcles).
perhaps the starting point ought to be “explicit description of specifications actually used” (what ’standards’ are herein) rather than “assumption of random templates” (aka ’standards’). in a design spec in engineering (including software engineering), all manner of details are laid out explicitly: “by x we mean blah-blah-blah”. in contrast to “this site best viewed with plutonium-powered binoculars, version 3.445.565.443, compiled at lunchtime on 3 oct 2006.” [not always done properly, or right. but we’re most of us still human …]
January 31st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Certification is the answer. What is needed is some organisation to certify that software, and in particular browsers, are standards compliant. And that we, as professionals, encourage the use and adoption of Certified Standards Compliant Software.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:18 am
I appreciate your sentiment. Coming as an electrical and electronic engineer working as a software engineer in a mechanical engineering company I know the value of working to standards. I shied away from developing for the web for years because of its lack of stability, but much progress has been made over the years.
The w3 recommendations and best practices can become standards in their own right if the general consensus is to follow them. However, in my opinion too few people actually do. That’s *why* we must educate, educate, educate…
And maybe, one day, things will just work.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:48 am
@Michiel Jelijs : Hi Michiel - many thanks for pointing this out
February 1st, 2008 at 5:51 am
[…] Web Standards Aren’t […]
February 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
[…] Her first post Web Standards Aren’t and the follow-up today From Web Standards Diva to Web Standards Devo are precisely about that issue. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) releases recommendations not standards. Its more complicated than pointing to a DOCTYPE at the top of a page or saying that a valid document is a web standards document. What we call web standards, and what we really mean to be contemporary best practice, include the recommended use of various technologies (including more current recommendations from the W3C) in ways which improve the business and technical outcomes of web development. These do include using Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), eXtensible Hypertext Markup Language (XHTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), JavaScript, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and other technologies. But web standards (or contemporary best practice) also promotes a methodology in using those technologies and recommendations. […]
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 am
[…] Molly’s current view on Web Standards is more to with what standards are accepted in the world outside the web. We are talking the International Organization for Standards aka ISO. […]
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
I remember several years ago, there was discussion about why they’re called standards instead of recommendations. Someone said because WaSP sounds better than WaRP. I thought that was amusing.
There are standards for the web, in the technical sense of the word at least. ECMAScript is a standard. Also, there’s ISO-HTML.
And a standard is merely an example that serves as a model to follow. That’s the gist I get from every dictionary definition I’ve seen. De facto standards are standards, but are counterproductive on the web, which is why we’re wanting compliance with W3C recommendations.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Crap. You are just playing word games to cover for the fact that Microsoft has the worst standards support.
Look it up:
“3: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example: criterion…”
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/standard
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Geoff, I’ll follow this up in email but if you’d like to take a really anti-me / anti-microsoft stance on this issue, would you please do a short video of yourself expressing your thoughts? I’d like to add a few people saying that sort of thing to my keynote presentation at Webstock in Wellington later this month. If you’re keen to do it, let me know. I’m truly interested.
Thanks,
Molly
Your wordplay girl
February 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Democracy on ‘the net’?!?
Establishing standards on the Web is a ‘democratic process’ where the W3C defines a structure of government, by committee, no less. Each browser manufacturer then gets one vote and subsequently votes its own interests.
There is no deadline for the outcome of this election, in fact it is an evolving process where votes may be ‘upgraded’, sorry, ‘recast’ when the outcome may results in public unrest, or if the constitution is amended by the W3C (sounds strangely like the U.N. and the Security Council members).
Now, in this ‘democratic process’, who loses? Why, ‘we the people’ who have to accomplish progress amidst organized anarchy, of course!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Hi Molly - I started to question the notion of W3c standards in the context of Web accessibility, when we met at W4A 2005 in Japan. I’ve published several follow-upo papers in which I argue that WCAG’ standards’ should really be regarded as best practices, which need to be contexualised - alongside usability best practices, such as Jakob Nelsen’s.
Various papers on this are available from:
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/
and on my blog at
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/category/accessibility/
I think your critique of HTML and other Web standards is really interesting. I’ll sepond some time reading your posts (which I only read after you started to follow me on Twitter).
All the best
Brian Kelly, UKOLN
February 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
One question: Does he snore?
April 7th, 2008 at 4:32 am
it is easy to find it, i think u just search on google or yahoo
April 8th, 2008 at 8:39 am
but, i think it is another thing which you have
April 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
i like it
April 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
interesting, thanks
April 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
do you know everything about css?
April 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
how can i find everything about css?
April 10th, 2008 at 7:43 am
what do you want to learn about css? we can help easily
April 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
i want learn too, i want start at the beginning of css
April 12th, 2008 at 6:57 am
[…] First, a little sidetrack; what are web standards? Some say that there aren’t any web standards. I disagree. Web standards are the guidelines and specifications from W3C that (most) browser makers follow. That means xhtml, css, Javascript and some, for now more obscure, technologies. And it means web accessibility. We’re not quite there yet when we can say that these are standards because everybody does something the same way, but we’re getting there. […]
April 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
it is good t see u
April 21st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
thats the matter i want to learn
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
ok,thanks
April 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
hi, umit. how is going on