[Update: The CSS3 Attribute Selectors article in the Reference was updated just prior to this post going live. So my ranting about that section is largely out-of-date and can be summed up now as "Took much longer than I'd anticipated".]

When I was first hired by Mindfly in 2007 I was not what you’d call “web standards aware”. Upon seeing the table-based layouts, font tags, and massive collection of inline-styles that stampeded through my pages like wild buffalo, grown men would gnash their teeth and wail in torment and mothers would hide their children.

It only took a few crying infants for me to realize something needed to change if I wanted to keep this career. My infovore nature led me to consume as much information on the topic I could muster, starting with Andy Clarke’s Transcending CSS and continuing through dozens of online tutorials and references. Learning the errors of my past, I spent a bit of time quietly taking my old sites out to the woods, instructing them to dig their own graves, then whacking them with a shovel before burying them for all time.

After the evidence had been destroyed, I went about trying to make compliant, pretty sites using the best practices in HTML and CSS. By 2008, I had friends who thought making website was the bee’s knees, but they didn’t know where to look for learning CSS, etc. At that point my bookmarks of handy sites had grown enormously, so I heartily recommended several.

One that I mentioned time and again was the Sitepoint CSS Reference, which was (to my knowledge at the time) a very complete, useful reference to the wonderful world of CSS. It even included tasty tidbits about CSS3 support. The main reason I sent each person who asked to this reference was explained in Sitepoint’s announcement:  “…the reference contains a bunch of features that make it stand out from the pack — things like cross-browser compatibility charts and user feedback to ensure that it is accurate, up to date, and best-practice. If you’re building sites with CSS, this is a reference you’ll keep coming back to again and again.”

With the speed at which this industry changes, who wouldn’t want access to a constantly updated reference that even incorporated outside feedback?

There is a problem, unfortunately. As near as I can tell, the reference isn’t updating. Since its launch, it seems to be sitting still, failing to modernize its information as browsers march on. Every single browser on their compatibility list has had major updates since its launch, putting much of the CSS3 support information well out of date. Never mind that Google Chrome has been out for quite a bit of time now (as the Internet sees such things) and has no compatibility information present despite it’s higher browser share than Opera in most markets.

In a book, this situation is a necessary reality. Books, by their static nature, are out-of-date typically before they’ve even been published, requiring later editions, etc. But for a web-based reference, which claims specifically to have the benefit of staying up-to-date and incorporating user feedback, this isn’t terribly cool.

For me, the situation is exasperated by their promise to incorporate feedback (or even claiming to do so) when they (at least in situations I’ve experienced) clearly are not. To back my claim, I’d like like to direct you to my own experience I’ve had, which I’ll call Exhibit A. If you examine the page on CSS3 Attribute Selectors, you’ll find that it erroneously claims that Internet Explorer 7 completely fails to support these little gems.

I’m no IE fan, but I can tell you my friends, that this is a falsehood. And because I was foolish enough to take that advice at face value (who doesn’t trust Sitepoint?) I created IE-specific workarounds in a project where I first included these selectors, workarounds which ended up costing me a decent chunk of time. It was only later that I decided the best experience is personal experience and I actually tried the selectors in IE7, only to discover that they work perfectly fine. I’d wasted time (translate that: money) fixing a nonexistent problem they claimed existed.

Not being the type to hoard information, I shared the fact that they were mistaken in a comment on May 2, 2008, complete with a link to a test page to confirm that I wasn’t full of hot air. (The old test page has disappeared, so you can see what I’m talking about if you check this test page in IE7). Eventually they marked that they’d incorporated my comment into the article… only they hadn’t. It still incorrectly stated IE7 support didn’t exist. Sometime much later (aka, this year), I commented in annoyance at the mistake again on Twitter. They responded multiple times over Twitter to me, asking for clarification (which I gave) and then promised to update their Reference (which they didn’t).

That was a couple months ago.

Today’s comic shares my view on the so-called Reference, albeit in a somewhat abstract sense. So let me make it clear: I don’t think the Reference is what they claim: a reference. Rather, much like René Magritte’s unpipe it is not what it appears, merely the image of it. The unreference, if you will, is something that claims authority and completeness but increasingly lacks both as time moves forward.

One erroneous page isn’t worth tearing down their entire reference. However, with a complete lack of modern CSS support information on every major browser, Sitepoint’s “up-to-date” CSS Reference has become largely useless as a source for web designers living and working in 2009.  I’m upset at this, because I sent literally everyone I knew with an interest in learning CSS to their site, saying “Hey, these guys know their stuff.”

Now… well, now I tell people to avoid it. I’ll repeat that for anyone reading: Don’t bother. They mean well, but they’ve failed to live up to their mandate of keeping updated. In March, when I’d commented (again) on my disgruntlement with the lack of updates, I received the following pair of tweets from Kevin Yank (@sentience).

April 6, 2009 4:19pm: “What erroneous compatibility info did you find? We are planning to refresh the Reference for the latest crop of browsers in May.” (after which I gave a summary).

April 6, 2009 4:50pm: “Thanks! Will get that corrected ASAP.“

It’s July now. I think we may have different definitions for “corrected” or “ASAP”.

Nothing keeps you more humble in your industry than learning an important job-related detail, then discovering shortly thereafter that everyone else has known for years. For the past few months I’ve been experimenting with “OOP CSS”, taking advantage of mutliclassed elements to reduce stylesheet size and increase CSS reusability (after attending this presentation by Nicole Sullivan at Web Directions North.) Within the past couple weeks, I found some major roadblocks to using this technique with IE6 when being incautious about how the rule descriptors are ordered: IE6 majorly bungles multiple-class descriptor support.

To get a better view of what I’m speaking about (assuming you’re not already familiar with it), go check out the post I wrote at Mindfly about this very issue: Web Developer Weems and the Case of the Multiclass Bungler (AKA IE6).

I don’t need to write too much about this particular topic, as I’ve ranted about it in the past, but I couldn’t help but notice Andy Clarke’s micro-rants on Twitter about Opera’s recent bad behavior towards Microsoft (see here, here, here, here, here and even here for some samples of his thoughts). I was hoping to see a blog post manifest from him that I could read while laughing deeply, perhaps even shooting milk from my nose. Alas, Andy’s better sense took hold and he did the smart thing and went and watched Star Trek.

I also saw Star Trek. It was good. It was better than good. Go watch it, you’ll love it. I promise.

As it stands, I’ll take a swing or two in his place. First, let me direct you to today’s comic featuring Andy Clarke, wherein a couple of cheap shots are made at Opera’s expense. Then, continue reading.

First, I’m aware that browser usage statistics are like a dark art, much akin to necromancy and astrology, where accuracy isn’t really achievable. But the fact is (and take a look at Wikipedia’s page on the topic) that Opera according to some of these browser usage sources does in fact have less users than Netscape.

That’s right, there’s still people using Netscape. How scary is that? I wonder if they think grunge is alive and watch reruns of Family Matters while downloading websites on 14kbps modems. And just to reiterate, there’s more of these people (according to some sources) than there are people using Opera.

Beyond that, Google Chrome is the new hot browser in town and has already exceeded Opera’s user base in less than a year. That’s right, less than a year.

Look, I’m not saying it’s the number of users that count. After all, IE6 is utter rubbish and it’s still being used by too many people out there. What I am saying is that instead of wasting your company’s public image whining about the fact that Microsoft is doing us all a favor and forcing IE8 updates over their update system, you could be spending time looking at your own browser and figuring out why among other things a browser that has been dragged along for a decade by AOL then finally shot in the head (aka, Netscape) still has more users than your product.

Instead of making absurd suggestions that your competition serve your product via their update service, maybe you could look at Google Chrome and devise how it so rapidly out-paced you in such a short period of time?

Microsoft’s browser, even its newest version, isn’t even close to the coolest browser on the market. I don’t like Internet Explorer, and I only use it to check website compatibility in my job. But I don’t use Opera either, and that’s because (among other reasons) it has thus far convinced me (and the rest of the world) that it’s not worth the effort of installing and using rather than Firefox, or Safari, or the other web standards-compliant browsers on the market. It’s enough to make me wonder why we consider Opera part of the Big Four (now the Big Five). At this rate, with even terminated browsers giving Opera a run for the money, should we expand that name to the Big Six?

Is Opera a good browser? Yes. If that’s not the reason that it’s being ignored, than what is? Perhaps a lack of add-on support. I’ve always felt that Opera’s too busy telling people how to surf the web, and not spending enough time figuring out the features people want. Firefox isn’t popular on accident.

But I’ll tell you the number one reason why I don’t use Opera. It’s because of the company’s public behavior with their legal actions and petulant whining. The rank-and-file employees are talented people creating a worthwhile (albeit, not standout) product. But the big shots on top cost the company their credibility every time they make a cheap, transparently spiteful shot at the current market leader.

And lest I let the others off the hook, shame on Mozilla and Google for getting involved with the EU nonsense. Focus on your products, not on begging the government to get people to install your browsers for you.

Warning: this post falls into diatribe territory. I strongly feel that important technologies should be determined by consensus and not closed circles, and I’m not convinced that this is currently the case of HTML5.

I seriously doubt that Ian Hickson would ever kick Manu Sporny into a deep well (as today’s comic implies). For that matter, I’m not convinced he’d run around in only a cape, sandals and shorts, but I don’t know him as a person so I could be wrong on that point.

However, everything I’ve read, from the W3C’s mailing list archives, to blog posts by various people ranging from ARIA to RDFa, to Ian’s own words have convinced me that Hickson has fallen deep into a self-important gatekeeper mentality on the HTML5 spec, and anyone else’s opinions be damned. Although I will rant a bit on the topic, I’ll start by directing you to the following blog post/chronology by Sam Ruby that discusses this (albeit without the rhetoric I’d be more likely to fall into). The whole thing is a good read, but if you’re impatient you can jump to the end and check out his conclusion. He discusses the need for consensus over dictatorship in the open web again here (I get the impression he discusses that a lot, this is just a sample. I also don’t think he uses the word “dictatorship.”)

It’s become clear to a good deal of people more involved in these circles than I that a Not Invented Here attitude has tainted the HTML5 group, as discussed by Jeremy Keith here in a post about ARIA and HTML5. I’m guessing it’s an easy enough trap for any group of experts to fall into, but it still creates a situation where an otherwise open process becomes a closed loop. Case in point? Well, if ARIA isn’t enough for you, how about the attempts to get RDFa into the HTML5 spec?

RDFa has been facing a Hixie-manufactured road block for months now on inclusion into the HTML5 specification for what on the outside appears to be no better reason than its origination outside of his inner circle. Ian claims he’s seen insufficient use-cases and that he is “confused” by how RDFa is used, despite constant feedback by the RDFa proponents such as Manu Sporny providing both use cases and tutorials. Considering his technical expertise, I find the confusion claim by Hickson more than a bit perplexing. My own technical pedigree doesn’t come close to Ian’s, and yet I was able to successfully use valid RDFa syntax after less than a hour of reading the convenient RDFaWiki. Heck, if reading isn’t your strong point (which would be an unusual situation for a web professional) you can even watch videos they provide.

As near as I can tell, the only reason that he’d be “confused” by both the problems RDFa is designed to solve and how to implement it is because he wants to ensure that it doesn’t make it into the HTML5 spec, and he’s simply counting down the timer. Ian’s guide to handling people starts with Step 1: “There is No Situation” and concludes with Step 4: “Something could have been done, but it is too late.” Considering the stalemate for the past few months as he says repeatedly “There aren’t enough use-cases” or “I’m confused”, one could guess that he’s holding out until October, which according to his often derided timetable is when the Last Call Working Draft is supposed to occur.

Ultimately, though, the problem is more deeply routed than stubbornness. It seems, by all accounts, an unwillingness to play well with others. Quoted in a comment to Sam Ruby’s post Half Full, Ian said “The HTML5 work isn’t using the traditional W3C approach, and will never use a consensus approach so long as I am editor. Consensus simply isn’t a good way to get technically solid specifications, and is in any case basically impossible to achieve in a group with hundreds of participants such as this one.”

Someone with that mentality shouldn’t be allowed to steer the ship for a standard that will define how millions (if not billions) of web pages are made over the next few years. We’re all going to be impacted by HTML5, so even though we don’t need to all agree (an impossibility considering human nature) at least attempting a consensus of those involved is desirable. Even if I’m frustrated by glacial pace of CSS3 implementation, I prefer the W3C’s attempt at a participatory process to some sort of autocratic decision-making on how I’ll be coding for next few years.

For more views about the challenges of trying to be involved in the HTML5 process, peruse these bits about the RDFa/HTML5 conflict by Shelly Powers. Also, I reccomend checking out the advocacy of rev=”canonical” by Jeremy Keith here and here. These posts are notable because they illustrate issues with how the HTML5 group is impacting web development (without hitting the topic over the head as I’d be inclined to do) from the angle of an easy to state problem: the prevalence of URL shortening, the potential for link-rot, and a proposed solution that includes using rev, an attribute that the HTML5 WG has already decided to remove from the HTML5 spec.

What can be done? Well, you can do as Keith proposed for rev=”canonical”, and use it, validation be damned. If, for example, RDFa or ARIA is used enough by authors, then a time will come that no option will exist other than it be included in the spec. It’s a brute-force approach, but it’s a democratic one, which is far preferable to letting one Google employee decide what’s best for us.

This is a quick sanity check, if nothing else.

A while back, I found a way to make my inline-block spacing issues go away by getting tricky and using word-spacing to remove the gap, as discussed and tested here. I failed to check the results in a webkit browser, though, and recently discovered a slight problem.

Mainly, they don’t support that.

For whatever reason, IE, Firefox and Opera all apply word-spacing styling to inline-blocks, either adding to or removing the whitespace between the elements depending on your style. Safari and Chrome, however, do not. Mind you, they both have whitespace between the elements. They simply don’t allow the use of word-spacing to modify that space.

Here’s an example page showing the use of word-spacing with inline-blocks and normal sentances. Take a look in a webkit and non-webkit browser to notice the difference. (I didn’t bother to do IE 6&7 correction, so those browsers won’t show the lists side-by-side. Upgrade your browser already!)

As you’ll see, the webkit browser isn’t removing the whitespace.

So, the question is this: Does the w3c spec say what behavior is supposed to occur? Is the webkit result a bug/out-of-spec, or are the other browsers providing a result that isn’t required by the spec? It seems to me that the non-webkit result is the proper one. If you’re going to make blocks behave like words with spacing, you should be able to modify them in the same fashion. But then, there’s a lot about CSS that doesn’t always work like you think it should. (point in case: vertical-align. Probably the worst style ever.)