RE: Future version of HTML!?

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Keith Bowes wrote:

> Ah, the W3C-  a typical case of high authority on an ego trip.  
>  Like HTML, the W3C has to change a bit too, or they'll always  
> be greedy tyrants.

The W3C doesn't have any authority.  They are self-proclaimed keepers of
the HTML standard, but this is no more valid than if I proclaim myself to
be keeper of the HTML standard. 

Their authority would come from authors and UA developers agreeing to
listen to them.  As a consortium of UA developers you'd think they would
actually have some authority, and maybe they do come close to being an
authority on HTML.  But the problem is that few people listen to them. 
Most importantly the UA developers that are part of their consortium don't
listen to them.  So why should we? 

The W3C has neither compromised on a standard that reflects what people
use, nor have they stuck to an ideal markup language.  They are left in
some wishy-washy middle ground that none are satisfied with.  The W3C seem
to be bent on redesigning existing international standards for no good
reason. 

XML     <-> SGML
DOM     <-> groves
CSS/XSL <-> DSSSL

But the W3C has possibly developed some good standards.  HTTP 1.1 is
pretty good as far as I understand, although I don't know much about the
protocol.  PNG is a great standard, but also stuffers from a lack of
implementation from the consortium's members.

So the point is, if you are looking for authoritative HTML standards, I'd
look at ISO-HTML.  Not that anyone would use it, but at least it is
developed by a creditable international organization.

-- 
Russell O'Connor                           roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
       <http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/>
``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message''
-- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy''

Received on Saturday, 23 October 1999 11:04:38 UTC