Comments on: Comic Update: The HTML5 Show (AKA, A Mess)

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:25:16 +0000

I didn’t “walk away from WCAG.” The now-deceased cochair and his colleague got ever so tired of having their group told day after day they were screwing up that they revoked my Invited Expert status, i.e., claimed I was no longer an expert. So I wrote a highly public article that shamed them into fixing WCAG 2, which they did.

Hence it didn’t produce the results they desired, but did produce the results we wanted.

By: Dana Lee Ling

Dana Lee Ling — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:44:46 +0000

It seems to me that this leaves me back where I was in 1996. Put together a web page, test it in a browser, and – if the page looks like I meant it to look and operates as I intended it to operate – publish it. Then I do not have to worry if it is W3C compliant or WHATWG compliant. A couple browsers now deliver HTML+CSS+SVG+MathMl, some even include SVG animation. I am getting the technologies I need, my thanks to however that is happening.

By: ppjm

ppjm — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:56:00 +0000

Interesting rant.

I don’t know Ian Hickson at all, but I do remember his incredible, hyperbolic campaign against faux xhtml. Faux xhtml does no harm, of course, so long as one doesn’t try to serve it as real xhtml – and the majority of people writing faux xhtml would never dream of doing something so technically demanding or unnecessary. And those who did serve faux xhtml as real xhtml would correct it soon enough if they had the technical nouse, and if they didn’t would just revert to faux. The argument really always seemed to be that the vast majority of people writing content were much more stupid and technically inferior and inexperienced than Hickson, so they shouldn’t be trusted to hold a fork, never mind a knife. Some view faux xhtml as better than plain html for reasons of clarity and style – no other reason is needed – and people will keep on doing it and future browsers will continue to support it, even if some Hickson spec says that xhtml must be served as application/xhtml+xml and not as text/html.

So that you partly lay the current difficulties in specifying html5 at the door of Ian Hickson does not altogether surprise me.

By: Krzysztof Maczyński

Krzysztof Maczyński — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:09:38 +0000

Rachel (and everybody interested), I’m already aware of a few other calls for a coup d’état and some actual efforts (including this blog, but also something more related to standardization). I intend to contribute in a new way to this movement soon and I’ll post a link under this entry, under the newest one here at that time, and email you personally.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:25:37 +0000

What exact thing or things did I “overreact” to? Do please provide a full list.

By: Kyle Weems

Kyle Weems — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:02:38 +0000

@Libby – Well, on the plus side, I had the comment visibility issue brought to me in a mature, polite fashion. Quite nice, I assure you.

Despite the tone (and off-topic nature) of the criticism, thank you for the feedback on the contrast. It looks quite distinct for me on the monitors I’ve viewed it on, but now that I’m aware there’s an issue for some, I’ll take the opportunity to look into a replacement combination.

By: libby

libby — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:43:23 +0000

It’s all kind of moot. I’d be happy with a page that didn’t require me to highlight the text in the comments section just to be able to read it because someone thought dark text on a dark orange background looks good.

By: Kyle Weems

Kyle Weems — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:42:22 +0000

@Rachel – I’ll wear a tricorn (especially if it involves tea and harbors). But do we then have to run it ourselves? That sounds suspiciously like hard work.

@Larry – It’s the routing around those people after the public process has happened that is among the most annoying aspects of the process. I’m sure the motive of all parties involved is to have the best spec possible. I wish, though, that the one person holding the reins wasn’t so intractable when it comes to accepting outside opinion (even expert outside opinion in fields like accessibility.) He follows the process until it doesn’t match his view, and then just chucks it to the side.

It’s sad, really.

By: Rachel Nabors

Rachel Nabors — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:22:12 +0000

@Adrienne Perhaps they need to be forcefully ousted from power. Who else is interested in staging a coups d’état? Raise your hands! We can wear tricorns!

By: Larry Masinter

Larry Masinter — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:27:29 +0000

I don’t think it’s useful to pick heroes and villains in this tale. A system can be broken even when everyone is acting on the best of intentions, with only the sin of hubris combined with an inability to see other people’s point of view.

I think the role of organizations like W3C and IETF are to supply process and governance to make sure those other points of view are heard and that broader requirements are met. As people have found ways to route around those, it damages more the credibility of the standards organizations than it does the individuals; they’re just pursuing what they likely honestly believe are noble goals, just using the modern means of snarky disdain.

It’s easy to get sucked in. If you join the HTML working group yourself (go ahead): don’t flame, just say no.