Posted by William Gill on 10/11/07 15:40

Neredbojias wrote:
>
> Well, I don't look at it (nor most things) quite that way. Just because
> I may not have plentiful experience within the scope of the subject per
> se does not preclude my right or ability to criticize the results. Yes,
> I have lots of experience in _using_ the standards but little in
> actually formulating them to be viably progressive. My decision
> regarding their worth or lack thereof is based upon the ease-of-use with
> which they may be instituted and the reliability they demonstrate in
> performing. As both of these areas are currently somewhat of a joke
> often enough to be notable, I feel quite confident that my opinion is
> the correct one.
>

You probably have more experience than you might think. Every day you
deal with things that are a byproduct of my old favorite "Law of
unintended consequences." They occur in contracts, laws, and
"standards." Some principles are the same, the difference between
standards, contracts, and laws are primarily who they govern, their
enforceability, and available mechanisms of enforcement. Break a law,
and you could get incarcerated, break a contract you could get sued,
break a standard you could get,... what not used? That works when you
control the market. Don't make it according to the standard, and no one
will buy it, but can anyone MAKE millions of users stop using any
particular UA? Users don't usually care that the UA doesn't achieve the
desired effect the "right way" they just care that it does what they
want (at least some of the time.) Thus began the Holy Crusade of HTML,
the browser wars. (Ever notice the metaphor between religion and
HTML/CSS in some discussions here?)

It's ALWAYS easier to start with a clean slate, with no legacy
complications, but history is almost always a factor. Similarly,
evolution. We certainly wouldn't want a ease-of-use to preclude
adaptability. The constant "tinkering" is a pendulum pushed back and
forth. Unfortunately some energy may increase the momentum rather than
dissipate it. SGML started out in the academic and scientific user
community, and it was easier to enforce the S of SGML, don't use the
standard and no one will read/share your work. Would you be happy if
SGML/HTML were limited to rules that only suit the exchange of scholarly
work?

You have every right to be personally unhappy with the current state of
things, and you may indeed feel quite confident that your opinion is
the correct one. However, I might add "by some definition of
'correct.'" <g> Thomas Alva Edison once said "I have not failed. I've
just found 10,000 ways that won't work. (another of my favorites)."
Let's just hope it doesn't take them that many tries to get the
standards "right." <g>

The point being, you may well be shooting the messengers for the message
they bear. It is a difficult task, and you should applaud their
willingness to at least make the effort, even if you are not satisfied
with the result. The alternative being "Abandon hope all ye who enter
here." (i.e. We can't fix the standards so get rid of them.)

None of this means you should let those who chose to right/write the
standards just do as the please. That's where your "right or ability to
criticize the results" comes in.

[Back to original message]