By Adrian Roselli (aardvark) Email / Member info / Bio User since: 12/14/1998 Last login: 05/21/2004 Articles written: 47 Average rating: 4.04 Total ratings: 414

By now everyone has had the opportunity to read the Web Standards Project (WaSP) position on old browsers, and see A List Apart (ALA) implement that campaign's message with its own rebuild. Overall, a good message, and lots of good points within.

But WaSP has made it too easy. The people who partake in the WaSP and ALA are all too familiar with standards, compliance, and the failure of the browser manufacturers. In fact, none of what happened is really new to anyone who frequents the sites. In essence, WaSP and ALA are preaching to the choir. Not everyone in the choir may agree with the implementation, but they all understand the message.

And they've chosen the easiest targets out there — the browser makers. There's loads of data to demonstrate that the browsers don't adhere to standards, and that they've often ignored them. Microsoft is always a target, so it's no great leap to attack their implementation of the <marquee> tag. Netscape is now an AOL company, so it's easy to demonstrate how they took liberty with (then nascent) standards. Regardless of the fact that they both helped extend and stress-test the standards until the W3C was ready to take a strong role.

So now they lay blame on the older browsers, and praise the new ones for almost implementing standards that are up to four years old (even though there are more recent standards out there). They want developers to tell users to upgrade their browsers. With a campaign more annoying to users than the "Best viewed with..." buttons of the first six years of the web, WaSP suggests you kick users over to a page telling the users that their browsers are old and crappy. Who cares about the reason they may be using the browser? Who cares that the browser qualifies as good but the user had JavaScript disabled? Who cares that some users don't care?

In focusing on the browsers, they've taken the pressure from where it really belongs — the editors. The browser makers are getting it, they've been making the changes (thanks in part to the WaSP and many developers). The developers who frequent ALA and WaSP get it, they're coding to standards. The users are going to be assaulted with annoying redirects if WaSP has its way, so they may even upgrade in less than the projected 18 month window. But what about the developer who doesn't partake? How is the campaign benefitting him/her or users of his/her sites?

Ultimately, there are two kinds of editors, people and software. Not all software writes bad code, and not all hand-coders write good code. But just as everyone thinks he or she is a good driver, nobody wants to fess up to the fact that someone is writing abysmal code.

Software

And by software, I primarily mean WYSIWYGs. This also includes those great text editors that offer incorrect HTML syntax guidance. And there are some that are self-described visual editors, or are really page layout applications, or even word processors. But ultimately, if it writes HTML for you, I'm talking about it. I don't want to name any in particular, however, since I know people can be defensive about the tools they use. Some are bad, and some are good, and some are only as good as the user is bad.

I am, however, going to offer this statement from a company who makes all sorts of web tools. This statement was reported at a few places, including a review of the Web Standards Project Panel posted by Macromedia (don't worry, there are other sources to verify it):

"The compliancy argument, despite its good intention, does not have any important real-world application or meaning when considering the challenges Web designers face today. Nearly all professionally-created sites created with a plethora of web design visual authoring and coding tools will not pass compliancy tests as presented at http://validator.w3.org/. Failure of this test likewise does not serve any strong indication as to the validity of the Web site design itself in terms of user experience."

This circular argument basically says, nobody's making sites with valid code, so we're not going to make a tool that writes valid code. To some degree, all the tool vendors are guilty of promoting this logic. There are tools that happily insert invalid tags and attributes, allow incorrect nesting of elements, and even have incorrect (or misleading) documentation. The resulting code is often bloated, and is generally optimized for the developer's system.

There are open-source tools out there that could be incorporated into the editors. Off the top of my head, I can think of three that would make any WYSIWYG (or otherwise) editor a much more viable solution for the developer who wants to code to standards:

1. The W3C HTML/XHTML validator. This will validate the given page against the DTD listed within the page. The source code is distributed under a GPL-compatible license.
2. The W3C CSS validator. Another tool that could be integrated into an editor.
3. HTML Tidy. A handy stand-alone utility that searches for, and corrects, tag errors (nesting, unclosed tags, illegal tags, etc.). The source code is there, and they promote integration with other tools.

Granted, this doesn't necessarily apply to some tools that only output to HTML as an ancillary function. But if they choose to market this feature and know developers rely on it (like creating entire sites from sliced images), then they should have the responsibility of building the tool to write correct code. Some tools offer the option to customize code by, for instance, letting you quote attributes. This should not be an option, attributes should be quoted. If somebody really wants to write non-compliant code, that person can edit it manually, but the tool should default to correct code at all times, and assume the user utilizes the tool because the user cannot or will not code by hand.

Wouldn't it be nice if the editor, or other non-dedicated tool (page layout tool, for instance), could notify the developer when he/she is creating inaccessible code? Wouldn't it be nice if all those positioned <div>s were re-ordered, with prompting to the user, so that a screen reader could make sense of the content when linearized? Maybe it could coach the user for page titles instead of leaving blank <title>s everywhere. Perhaps it could tell the user that "click here" is an unacceptable string of text to make into a hyperlink. How about warning when a frame has no navigation in it? Image maps without text links? Lack of meta information? And the list goes on.

There are too many people who've been pushed into web development as part of their daily job, but have no idea what HTML is. I've seen too many human resource staffers expected to maintain the job posting section of a site. Why not provide them with a tool that does it right? They aren't going to learn HTML, or even know about the WaSP campaign, so let's target the software manufacturers who are the de facto authors of millions of invalid pages. Let the users create good code, despite themselves.

So I say to the tool developers, use your software to guide the user with correct code, validate all output, and cut out all that evil. For all the tool users, you must understand that the tool limits you. Unless you hand tweak the ouput (in which case I refer you to the next section of this piece), you can only generate what the tool will let you generate.

People

Standards and support is a well understood problem, many people just don't care. There are developers who want the easiest way out possible, and don't care about standards in light of everything from the extra work to the nagging client. Just because they eschew WYSIWYGs doesn't mean they can code their way out of a triply-nested table.

These people can't or won't make that change. The worst offenders are those who won't. After surfing the responses to the ALA article, I saw way too many comments where the person was quite gung-ho about the "to hell with old browsers" message, and used it as justification to abruptly stop coding for older or alternative browsers. Nothing in the world changed just because ALA and the WaSP got some press on this issue. The same people using Navigator 3.04 yesterday are still using it today.

Yet too many people will use it as an excuse to dump all support for those older browsers. Let's be clear, there's no reason you can't build pages that work and look generally good in old browsers while still validating, this very site is an example (in fact, you can read about how we did it). But there's a certain gee-whiz factor with being on the bleeding edge. So now, instead of trying to get some bizarre DHTML trickery to work properly, a developer feels he/she can say, "It's the browser's fault. Tell them to upgrade." Immediately responsibility has been handed off. And all I wanted to do was buy a scarf. I did turn off JavaScript, though, since it kept crashing my version of IE5, so I guess it's my fault.

These are the developers who need to learn to code for the user, while still adhering to standards. Too many sites are simply justification for playing with code. On a personal site, that's great. On an e-commerce site, that's probably a bit dim. On a community site, that's just bad web karma.

In many cases, the culprit is that the developer is trying to apply old rules to a new medium. There are many things the web is not. It is not a CD-ROM presentation; users don't come to your site to learn a new navigation technique. It is not print; you can't control how text wraps, you can't control the leading, hell, you can't even control the typeface. The web is not television; users don't navigate linearly and without bandwidth concerns. This isn't to say we don't see the web in these media, but we need to code for what the web is, a highly malleable medium where the user has as much control as the developer in how the content is presented. And I'm not the first person to say it — it's been said on ALA, Jakob Nielsen has said it, and they're on opposite ends of the developer scale. Somewhere in between are the rest of us. And yet we see developers constantly massaging image-sliced table layouts and DHTML effects designed to wow themselves, their boss, or their clients, but rarely their users.

Hand coders also need good resources for their skills. Many of them turn to books, given the ease with which one can read them versus surfing the W3C site. However, many of these books provide incorrect code samples. I've personally returned four HTML books because they had incorrect tags, attributes, or syntax througout (I've seen them include both the <spacer> tag and the <marquee> tag, among other near-Greek tragedies). This isn't limited to books on HTML, either, but is seen perhaps more readily in books covering server-side programming and scripting. Often the authors are only concerned with getting their script correct, and the HTML is the unforunate offspring of the wonderful world of servers and scripts. As such, it is the bastard child of the code in the book, lacking in everything from quotes on the attributes to closing tags. After writing to an author of a server-side scripting book about the incorrect HTML and XHTML examples, I received this response:

"You are correct about the sample of code shown, but it was done deliberately. It was meant to show a typical sample of HTML, whether or not that correctly conformed to standards. I agree that, in itself this isn't really an excuse for writing 'bad code', but it wasn't sloppyness. [...] For myself I just hadn't really been aware of XHTML and it's importance - a pretty poor excuse I think you'll agree."

To his credit, the author was aware of the importance of standards by the time I had found this book, and had made significant improvements in later books. But certainly this is indicative of an overall lack of strict standards compliance in the very "text books" so many developers use. And since those developers often don't know about, or won't take the time to visit, the W3C site, they are at a significant disadvantage.

So I say to the people who code, learn the standards, code to compliance, and always keep the user in mind, regardless of what unfortunate browser he or she might use.

Would you like to rate this article? Article ratings encourage evolt.org contributors to keep writing the good stuff. Help make our authors feel wanted! You need to log in to rate an article. You can enter your username and password on the right. If you aren't a member of evolt.org yet, register and become a part of the community!

Your points are well taken. In fact, though these activities have not received much attention, WaSP has been talking to Macromedia and Adobe about upgrading the standards-compliance of Dreamweaver and GoLive, and both companies have expressed interest in this idea and willingness to proceed. It will take time.

The Adobe quotation mentioned in the article was a first reaction to overtures from WaSP. Adobe has since rethought their position. In fact, they approached WaSP Dori Smith immediately after the panel at Builder.com referenced in your article, though this wasn't mentioned in the article at Macromedia. ;)

Toolmakers are not to blame for giving the market what it wants. At the time these tools came out, the market wanted tools to manage the complexity of writing IE3/4-specific and Netscape3/4-specific scripts. That's what many of us were doing in 1997 and 1998 — coding to the quirks of incompatible browsers. It's what a lot of us still do, as noted in your article. It makes sense that the toolmakers would create tools to simplify that process. Increasingly it makes more sense to code to W3C and ECMA recommendations, and Macromedia and Adobe are smart enough to realize that, smart enough to WANT to upgrade their tools so that they don't become obsolete by 2003.

The overall point expressed so well in your article is right in line with what we are thinking and trying to achieve.

You raise another good point here:

::: Let's be clear, there's no reason you can't build pages that work and look generally good in old browsers while still validating, this very site is an example. But there's a certain gee-whiz factor with being on the bleeding edge. So now, instead of trying to get some bizarre DHTML trickery to work properly, a developer feels he/she can say, "It's the browser's fault. Tell them to upgrade." Immediately responsibility has been handed off. :::

There is no doubt that SOME developers will view the campaign as an opportunity to behave irresponsibly, though we are not advising that; we are advising developers to learn about and use standards and to devise their own audience-based strategies for implementing these technologies without leaving users behind. As always happens in such cases, the glitzy part of the message ("To hell with bad browsers") gets more attention than the 5,000 thoughtful words that follow that headline.

Well, it seems the newest article at A List Apart has the same idea. An article with a similar message just went live, and as their 100th issue, too. Read Ben Henick's article, Back to Basics, where he refers to the bizarre attribute 'naturalsizeflag' (that I had a hell of a time leaving out of this article) and other fun reasons to send your WYSIWYG on a long walk off a short <span>.

If you view standards as an expensive waste, perhaps you'd like to stop using email (SMTP, POP & IMAP standards), the web (HTTP/HTTPS), uploading content to sites (FTP), the internet at all (TCP/IP), the telephone, the television, roads, cash etc.

Where multiple providers need to interoperate, standards are essential. In the 19th century, some countries had multiple standards for public railway gauge. Now that's rare (and was actually eradicated quite quickly), because rolling stock needs to traverse networks.

The problem with HTML standards & UA conformance is that the UA publishers (MS & Netscape) helped shape the standards - they're robust, industry agreed protocols. Then they went back to the office and ignored them. Nice one.

On March 20, Adobe released a "Make NN6 Compatible" extension. However, instead of Adobe saying that it is complying with W3C standards, it says that Netscape 6 is complying with W3C standards, and that Golive's fix addresses DHTML and JavaScript rendering issues in Netscape 6. So, to be clear, Adobe is not specifically addressing W3C standards, just Netscape 6 compatibility issues.

However horrifying the code Golive produces, and I maintain that it is one of the horrors of this century, a minor step has been taken in the general direction of standards by Adobe (even if they don't know it). But don't hold your breath for real standards support, let alone for Macromedia or Microsoft to step up to the plate just yet.

micah,

First, you complain about users who don't download an upgraded browser, and then in the next breath you say you don't have time to download a bunch of browsers to test your own sites. What's up with that? And computers aren't just Web clients. They have lots and lots and lots of software on them, all which get updates and upgrades. I'd never have time to do anything if I made sure I had the latest version of every piece of software on my computer. Not to mention the costs of that for those who pay by the minute for internet access.

People like you and me spend a lot of the time on our computers surfing the Web. So, we make sure we have a decent browser. But I know a lot of people who spend most of their time in Excel (for example). They make sure they have the latest version of Excel and don't give a rat's arse what version their browser is.

This site is about designing for standards while degrading gracefully. Honestly, we probably didn't have to make sure our site degraded well. Our target audience is people who spend a lot of time on the Web. But, you know what? It really wasn't that much more trouble.

You say:
"You could be teaching newbies how to use CSS and still make their content available, while at the same time informing users of their need to upgrade"

I say: Who is "you"? Our content comes from people like you. Our members. This website is here because of the development efforts of our members. If you feel so strongly about this issue, it should be you teaching our members about it. We (the evolt community as a whole) have created this forum so that people like you can express your opinion. Look at our footer. "the mutual free exchange of ideas, skills and expreiences". It does not say: the free exchange of ideas, skills and experiences as long as we agree with them. Write an article. Participate on thelist. Express your opinion and make a strong case for it. If you are disappointed with this site, join thesite list and contribute to the development of it. Express your opinions there. It's like voting. If you don't vote, you can't complain about who is elected. Dig in. Get involed. Make your voice heard. You should be disappointed only if you are completely ignored (which you won't be).

Looking forward to seeing your involvement.

Biolight, take a look at the comment above yours, it specifically cites HTML-Kit. It is free and has a similar featureset to HomeSite and BBEdit. I don't know how you could have missed it, since it's in the comment you replied to, and if you read the W3C specs, it's linked there, too. In fact, when you go to shareware sites and look for HTML editors, it comes up. So, how is it that you've missed it?

Micah63, I'm going to try to reply in the order you posted, but I may jump around a bit.

It is possible to use CSS Level 1 with Navigator 4.x. It has pretty good support for a browser that is as old as it is. No, it won't support CSS-P, but that's a function of its age. You go on to say that editors make sites that look good in that old version of Navigator, and that users then won't know to upgrade. So far, you're seeing some of my point, although differently than I proposed it. By making editors that write that kind of browser-specific, non-valid HTML, we do not only create bad pages, we also create pages that still cater to the older browsers you want to see go away. If anything, that sounds like an argument to work on the editors, as I have suggested in my article.

If you want to hold the evolt.org site up as an example of how not to code a site, that's one thing, but you can't assume that just because you can't be bothered to test across the browsers your audience uses or code a site that your audience can see, every other site on the web should conform. If you care to know the logic used in developing the evolt.org site, you can read it. We've got an article, Inside the evolt.org Rebuild: The HTML and CSS, that details the reasoning. Ultimately, this is an experiment in real-world development. Most developers don't have the freedom ALA does to experiment, so why not experiment with something that addresses the need for a consistent look and experience for all users, while still satisfying the core ideals of the WaSP? Do we really need more "Best viewed with" badges on the web?

Your assertion that it takes two months to design a page in tables vs. one week in CSS says more about your coding capabilities than anything else. In fact, with the browsers out there and the quirks in support for CSS-P, I have found it faster to stick with tables for layout while still getting the benefit of the same experience across all users. I don't have to explain to my clients what the WaSP is, or why their users should know, or why anyone should care. ALA has the advantage of not having to answer to clients or advertisers, so they can push that envelope and keep tweaking the site. Theirs is a work-in-progress, just like ours.

Beyond the tables for layout, however, what other issues do you have? Do you think the use of valid HTML is wrong? Or CSS? Or even support for the Web Accessibility Initiative? If it's just the tables, I wouldn't worry too much. Once support for CSS-P is broad, it'll be pretty easy to replace the template, it isn't that complex of a design.

The comment of mine you cite is easy enough to take out of context, which I don't mind. But to bring it into context, that was made about two days after the ALA redesign. At that point, when I (and others) surfed it in Navigator 4.x, I was unable to view the page at all. They have clearly been making improvements on the site and that is no longer an issue. Others can read the cited post at the ALA forum, among the others to which I replied, and the ones that replied to mine. Some other posts of mine at ALA discussing the move (as I paste these in, the ALA site is throwing JS errors, making it nearly unusable): RE: 3 months ago?, RE: blind or visually impaired?, RE: 3 months ago?, RE: get the hell out?, RE: 3 months ago?, RE: 3 months ago?. And if you walk through my posts on the evolt.org list (like this one), I think you'll find I promote standards and accessibility, but found ALA's approach to be taken to heart by too many developers who don't understand it or don't have the skill to implement it.

I'm sorry that you are disappointed in this site. By your very criteria, however, I don't see how that's an issue. Evolt.org uses valid HTML and CSS, which is the core of the WaSP message. All the content here is available to anyone. There are articles on CSS here, although anyone can add more. The only thing the site doesn't do is tell users they need to upgrade in order to see what they can already see just fine — we're just not that rude, nor do we assume everyone is on IE5.5 on Windows or IE5 on Mac. Really, I don't see the problem.

Adobe GoLive 6.0 (admittedly not among my favorite WYSIWYGs, but what is) has taken a step toward compliance. Among many other features listed on their product information page are the following:

• Robust DTD-profiled enabled syntax checker for compliant W3C code
• Section 508-compliant code for accessible sites

The associated QuickTime movies show an interesting toolbar that hides or displays WYSIWYG buttons based on which version of HTML/XHTML you select. Some of us have been looking for that for years, and, well, if you haven't learned how to hand-code it, now's your chance to skip trying.

Interestingly, in a smart marketing move, SSB Technologies (they supposedly do Section 508 compliance testing) is offering an LE version of their tool for free. It's for users of GoLive to test their GoLive-created sites for compliance. Who else finds this ironic? Anyway, the get the poop at Adobe.

Shoshannah, you have a good point. A pre-built template from a CMS isn't always well done. Ideally, you want to make sure those templates are valid HTML, and in most CMS implementation stages, you can pressure the developers to do just that.

But that's only half the battle. So many CMS WYSIWYG editors use the MSHTML control out of necessity, that content is often inserted with incorrect mark-up, and Microsoft has no plans to correct this. This requires the developers to run regular expressions or the like against all submitted HTML in order to clean it up.

You only get bad code with [non-WYSIWYG] CMSs if

1. You've produced the templates with bad code
   and
2. You don't train your content managers properly

This site runs a CMS - and you'll find that it's coded beautifully - it's both HTML4.01 and CSS compliant, and makes a good stab at the WAI guidelines. The only places you'll get poor code is in one or two bits of user-submitted content, and even that's pretty rare since the launch of the Code Guide.

I've done a lot of user training for CMSs, and make sure that they only get taught to code structurally and semantically. Occasionally I'll find a user with an HTML book (see above), but the tendancy to use FONT tags is soon discouraged.

Right now, I'm working on a couple of Vignette sites (which was one of the CMSs blamed in the article - the other (/.) isn't a general CMS anyway), and they are very, very well coded, to the extent that ALT attributes are mandatory - you can't upload an image without an ALT tag.

For WYSIWYG CMS tools, of course, the same issues are in play as with WYSIWYG HTML editors generally.

lorax1284 I'm not quite sure which version of HotMetal( or something in other case) you use but I installed it once and I found why this strange case name

• First it UPPERCASED all my tags, despite having a document type declaration that points to XHMTL
• It also replaced my DOCTYPE declaration with a proprietary one

  And this is only when I opened the file. Thank God I had a backup. I got rid of this program 5 minutes later.

  To sum up I don't think you can call this a good WYSIWYG editor.

  
  

Actually, if you were to validate this page, you'd notice that the template itself validates, as does the article. What doesn't validate are the comments associated with the article. But we don't control the comments other than to disallow some tags that can cause problems, and we do promote authors of comments (and articles) to follow the code style guide (linked above the comment box). This means any perfectly valid page can fall apart without good code in the comments (like your lack of <p></p> tags in your comment above).

Granted, at the time the article was written I used the character entity — to represent the em-dash, but at that time it validated. Since then, it no longer validates as the W3C has updated the validator to only accept valid SGML character entities, which required the change from — to — within the article.

Sorry for being a litle bit blunt there.

I guess some years with coding with bizzare browser rendering of html have made me into a Code gestapo :)
Didn't mean too sound grumpy. The article is music in my ears. I've given up editors year ago. May they keep up with the new trend in browsers. And any new format, standard or coding.

May the standard be with you.

I expect to be called out regularly, and if it didn't happen, I'd get sloppy. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Has anyone noticed that Macromedia has missed it's usual cycle for releasing Dreamweaver? It's usually out around the end of the year, but version 5 still hasn't materialised. I hope they're using the time well, like adding XHTML compliance, for example

Anyway, I subscribe to the notion that we have to look forward, rather than always cater to the past. Does anyone remember the days of the Amiga? People back then were reluctant to upgrade their computers, for whatever reason. Granted, most people didn't want to go out and drop 400 quid on a shiny new A1200 just to play the latest AGA games, but, for some people, even a memory upgrade was too much. Eventually, this contributed to the classic Amiga's demise (along with horrid mis-management and rampant piracy).

Granted, the web isn't the same thing as a computer (although it works on them), but to keep having to "code backwards" just to accomodate older browsers is the wrong way to go about doing things. In the UK, where I live, you can walk into any Dixons store and pick up a CD with at least IE5.5 on it for free. Install that and bam, you're up-to-date in the browser world. I use IE as the example because I've yet to see Opera 5/6 or Netscape 6 on a CD, apart from internet magazines (which, incidentally, are another way to upgrade).

Earlier in this thread, snave said:

A phenomenon that I find extraordinary and depressing is the popular lack of interest in investigating software such as this. Though it's free for the downloading, it seems to have no appeal for thousands of people who will rush to use an alternative product if it's marketed expensively enough.

Although he was talking there about editors, this could easily apply to browsers, too. If up-to-date, standards-compliant browsers were "marketed" hard enough, and the benefits clearly shown to Joe Public, I bet you a handsome sum of money that Joe would strongly consider upgrading. It's true that the average surfer these days doesn't care about their browser as long as it works, but why not make them care?

Why will someone buy a whole new graphics card, or computer, to play Quake 3 but won't upgrade their browser? Because the makers of that card promise them silky-smooth graphics and make that card look desirable. Loads of people spend time on the net, so why not make browsers desirable and show people how an up-to-date browser can improve their browsing? I am, simply by telling friends and colleagues that upgrading their browser is A Good Thing and, more importantly, why. It's a small step, but every little bit counts.

Maybe when the majority of people are using standards-compliant browsers, the emphasis will shift to the tool makers to ensure that their programs spit out standards-compliant code. Well, if they'll want anyone to see the pages, that is.

All good thoughts. A well-developed comment.

However, I think the idea is to to "intelligently code to standards". In other words, code to current standards while keeping in mind those who can't support the latest browsers on their computers or can't upgrade due to company or oganizational policy. There are always more than one "right" way to do a task. If one of those ways makes it possible for those older clients to view the site more easily, it's only common sense to use that method.

mattwarden
mattwarden.com

can anyone explain why a single browser cannot meet the proposed standards? are they impossible to meet? yes, i am looking for someone to blame. i make my meager living by hacking apart files from the design dept and trying to make something our clients and their intended users can use, always hoping to make everyone happy. i don't like explaining all this to people who couldn't care less nor should they.

i am still cursing the day gatesNco decided that the net was maybe worth taking seriously and dumped a crappy browser on the market, for free no less. sometimes i think that is where our troubles really started, even tho MS makes the most standards-compliant (and perhaps more importantly) the most widely used browser. why would anyone spend time trying to develop a decent browser when they can't make a dime off it? yes, i'm being simple minded, but i hope my point is being made.

could the comments from the above article about folks willing to rush out to buy the latest vid card but unwilling to upgrade their browsers stem from the fact that a "free" product might not be taken very seriously? or are browsers jsut taken for granted? sometimes it seems as if the browser developers don't even take their own products seriously. hell, most JQP people don't even know what rev of what browser they are currently using anyway. take whatever came with the OS and carry on. in the case of MS and their breadth, i feel the have an OBLIGATION to make a true standards-compliant browser! in fact, they have the opportunity to set a shining example (hey, stop laughing), with the big bonus (for us developers at the very least) of getting a decent browser to as many people as possible. AOL could do the same, but as far as moz/NS and the rest, i just feel sorry for those bastards. which takes me back to the beginning of my ramble...

can anyone explain why a single browser can not meet the proposed standards? i am stuck in the mire of trying to write code i can be proud of and deliver a usable product. not one of my clients in the last six years would accept the concept that their site would look this way to these people and that way to those people. in the mean time, i code to HTML4.01 and use the 3 or so CSS selectors that seem to almost work.

can anyone explain why a single browser can not meet the proposed standards?

can anyone explain why a single browser can not meet the proposed standards?

anyone?

bughouse (the blood on that wall is from my head)

Zaccix speculates that people would upgrade their browsers (or install an alternative to them) if superior browsers were "sold" to them.

Of course some would. But I don't think that many would. The vast majority of people are using Windows and are rather understandably afraid of "breaking" their systems. If they already have an experience of upgrading their browser, it's likely to have been an experience of upgrading from one version of IE to another. MS has succeeded in making this appear to be a drastic and irreversible change to the OS itself. I'd guess that they think adding Mozilla (for example) might somehow threaten the stability of their MS-upholstered cocoons.

bughouse wonders why no single browser supports all the standards. I'd guess it's because no developer has unlimited resources. Mozilla.org welcomes your input, if only as a beta tester, and I suppose the authors of Konqueror would too.

bughouse also claims that IE is the most standards-compliant browser. This comes as surprising news to me.

bughouse laments that

not one of my clients in the last six years would accept the concept that their site would look this way to these people and that way to those people

My sympathies. Surely it is those clients who deserve to go to hell. (For terminal stupidity, if nothing else: how can any page appear the same way on a regular computer monitor and a PalmPilot?)

(Are these the same clients who want Flash for its kewl effects and couldn't give a damn about people who neither have nor want Flash? I keep finding myself at pages such as this that announce total incompetence.)

Well, it's all more work for you. But doesn't it cut both ways? When even the most cretinous client somehow finds out that IE3 and NS4 are history and markup has therefore become easier, they'll take that as an excuse to pay less money.

Ok, not really, but this article I found today would certainly bug the more anal-retentive anti-old-browser types:

If you are particularly miffed at the tyranny of modern web design, stage your own personal protest and install an antique browser on your system. The Browser Archive at http://browsers.evolt.org maintains a collection of vintage browsers, including several incarnations of Mosaic, Navigator and Internet Explorer. You will find the original web browser - web inventor Tim Berners-Lee's WorldWideWeb for NeXT.

I had no idea, but it looks like my browser archive is partially at fault for dragging non-compliance out. Ok, I give myself too much credit, but still.. Anyway, you can read the rest of the article at the Guardian (it's a couple months old now): The way it was: Karl Hodge looks back to a time when the web was grey and information really did want to be free.

Has anyone tried Amaya? Given that it's W3C's tool, it ought to produce near-valid code... In fact, it guarantees to produce valid HTML4.01 and produces XHTML1.0Transitional by default.

Although annoyingly, there's no Mac version...

It's interesting to look back on this article, now when many of the things that Adrian asked for have started to come to pass. The DreamWeaver team worked with WaSP, and (I've heard) it generates something that's at least pretty standards compliant. We have IE6, which has a standards compliant mode, and we have a browser (Mozilla) with a level of high standards-compliance that runs on almost every platform in existence. Supporting standards actually became a popular idea at the tool-makers.

Of course, there's still the people problem. But even that is slowly being reconciled. Maybe soon (a few years) all of these trains will run on the same tracks, and the engineers will only have to build one kind of train wheel.

I'd certainly like that.

-M

And by software, I primarily mean WYSIWYGs.

In a WWW context there is really no such thing as "WYSIWYG" because renderings can, and do, differ widely.

The only sure-fire way to do it right is to write it by hand. Given the limited amount of time most of us have, hand written code just isn't an option.

It really does not take that long to write HTML and CSS by hand, even if you have to type everything in (though it does help to have an editor that will at least insert tags for you).

let's just face it first off -- as someone almost mentioned -- not everyone *can* upgrade their browsers... not everyone...

Agreed, for many the connect time to download can be expensive, let alone the cost to upgrade to a new computer.

Want to join the conversation? You need to log in to post a comment! You can enter your username and password on the right. If you aren't a member of evolt.org yet, register and become a part of the discussion!