Posted by Neredbojias on 06/20/05 10:25

With neither quill nor qualm, Jukka K. Korpela quothed

> > There's the
> > standard kind of standards such as the w3c standards
>
> Nope, they never saw a standard, really. Not even an Internet standard.
> This becomes obvious if you read some W3C recommendations _and_ some
> standards issued by ISO, IEC, CEN, or other standards bodies.
> Even the ISO HTML standard, itself an exercise in worse than futility,
> is much more rigorous than the W3C recommendation it builds upon.

Okay, true. But I hate reading the w3c edicts because they're really
pretty boring between the laughs.

> A standards body would hardly tolerate a situation like the one we have
> in the CSS field: the official recommendation is CSS 2.0, but the W3C
> itself does not even mention it on its CSS pages and instead
> effectively propagates the CSS 2.1 draft as standard, although it
> itself says that it is subject to change without notice and that it is
> inappropriate to cite it as other than work in progress. The "Errata"
> practice of W3C (making some fuzzy statements that range from typo
> corrections to obscure notes on something being wrong, and declaring
> this as official "Errata" to a specification) would be unimaginable in
> real standardization.

To be quite honest, I think the w3c in aggregate is actually quite
stupid. Oh, I'm sure it's composed of many very intelligent
individuals, etc., etc., but so what? What good does that do me when I
have to deal with the crap that comes out of their collective head-
banging? I don't know your feeling on the subject and certainly don't
want to start an argument, but in my opinion they've made many bad
decisions which have set the progress and usefulness of css back at
least 2 decades, and it hasn't stopped yet! We need standards, yes, but
we need *good* standards and ones that work and can be worked by the
average Jukka...

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]