|Bracing against the wind|
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The W3C is not supposed to *set* standards, it's supposed to *document* them based on common usage.
The W3C was never supposed to tell people, "This is what HTML is for" or "This is how it's supposed to work". The W3C's job is to say "This is how people are using HTML, this is the kind of HTML that, if you use, most browsers will support."
ALl the stuff that have come out of the W3C have been, in a word, "junk". They should back off all new standards, let browsers put in all the proprietary tags they want, and document the "winning systems" the way it was intended.
It's clear that <table>'s are here to stay... people like then, use them and want them. <font>'s are here to stay... for the same reason. There's this weird bureaucratic notion that HTML pages need to be "changeable" ... but isn't that what PHP's for? Do we really need to "encapsulate the style" of a document somewhere else?
It's embarrassing that the one of the most meaningful new syntactic markup tags ... the ICBM coordinates ... has failed to enter the standard.... whicle a bunch of junk that no one wants is squarely in there.
If W3C wanted to come up with a new standard for some thing that no one wants.. they should have given it a new name. Leave our HTML alone.
[View/Post Comments] [Digg] [Del.icio.us] [Stumble]
| Bloghop: | Blogarama | Technorati | Blogwise