CSS Unworking Group
Posted on December 13th 2007 | Have something creative to say? Leave a reply
83 reader replies so far
-
#1 On December 14th 2007 at 03:17am Lachlan Hardy said:
I couldn’t agree more, Andy. Thanks for putting this out there so succinctly and clearly.
The specifications should be developed and guided by what tools *authors* need to meet their business goals, not by the business goals of browser vendors.
The W3C system has always been flawed to me. I’m glad to see a straightforward solution to reduce the gap between expectation and reality.
-
#2 On December 14th 2007 at 03:23am cole henley said:
standards should always come before, and drive, implementation. not the other way round.
<crap analogy>
you don’t invite audi, vw, et al. along to re-write the highway code because of what their cars can/can’t do
</crap analogy> -
#3 On December 14th 2007 at 03:25am Jina Bolton said:
Well said. This is much-needed.
-
#4 On December 14th 2007 at 03:30am Vicki said:
But will the MS decide standards are of *no* importance and it’s not worth their while to support them, if they are excluded?
-
#5 On December 14th 2007 at 03:38am Kevin Yank said:
I don’t get it.
Okay, your proposal for web standards development to be driven by people other than those who will implement them for commercial gain has merit. That’s worth talking about, and has been an open question for some time.
But what does this have to do with Opera’s antitrust claim?
-
#6 On December 14th 2007 at 03:43am Eric Meyer said:
God love ya, laddie, as he would all who dream such big dreams.
I think I see how your proposed replacement would be better than what now exists, but much of that involves me projecting what I think you’re saying into the mix. I think your call will be much strengthened by clearly and specifically describing what your proposed group would look like, and how the browser vendors would or wouldn’t be involved in its activity. That way we can better tell if you’re proposing a new boss that’s the same as the old boss, a new approach that browser vendors will immediately forsake, or a genuine new path forward.
Clearly, I’d hope for the last of those three, but it’s hard at the moment to tell if you’re onto something here or not.
-
#7 On December 14th 2007 at 04:10am Alan Hogan said:
That’s a really exciting proposition. If the browser vendors were given only minimal roles in the working group, then the working group would find it easy to, say, certify vendors of compliance. Can you imagine? No more claiming standards support unless you have proof.
However, I don’t think your article quite explains what Opera is doing and how it will affect the working group. I’m a bit fuzzy there right now.
-
#8 On December 14th 2007 at 04:15am Jason Campbell said:
I can totally understand the desire to exclude the financial goals of these companies from the development of the standards but can that be achieved by denying them a seat at the table?
I mean what law is there that they must abide by these standards once they are set? We certainly can’t rely on them basing their decision to do so on the thought that not doing so will affect their market share can we?
I mean the IE team is just now embracing the specifications with IE 7 and their market share certainly hasn’t hurt from the delay in embracing the standards and as committed as they appear to be I can’t imagine that they would appreciate being dictated to by an organization they are not allowed to be a part of.
Even at the glacial pace in which the updates are released if these specifications are not delivered in a timely manner they may go off and develop their own interpretation of the specifications and we are back at everything being so screwed up like when it was Netscape vs. IE. At least by giving them a voice they can keep in line with the standards as they are set.
Maybe this is beyond worst case scenario, maybe I just really don’t get how this organization works now but even if closing the door improves the process by which the standards are developed I don’t see how it can benefit them being implemented by these for profit businesses.
Were do the developers of Safari and Mozilla et cetera fit into this as well? I would hope that the members of these companies that are currently a part of this organization have the ability to not let any goals of their respective organizations, outside of those that are common to the group, invade the discussion themselves and I can’t believe that the companies would bar participation due to this action but perhaps again this is my naiveté
-
#9 On December 14th 2007 at 04:27am David Mead said:
If there was ever a time for this to happen, it’s 2008!
As web design can be legitimately called an industry now, we in that industry should be able to demand, with one voice, that software vendors match our initiatives and update their products in a reasonable time frame.
If certain vendors (no names, no pack drill) forsake the new proposals we in the industry can rally against them.
Just a thought - Great post.
-
#10 On December 14th 2007 at 05:24am Wilson Miner said:
What’s the guarantee that browser makers actually implement standards they had no input on? (I’m actually asking, not being glib.)
-
#11 On December 14th 2007 at 05:39am John said:
@ Wilson
“What’s the guarantee that browser makers actually implement standards they had no input on?”
Market share maybe.
That’s why IE7 arrived and there was some genuine effort went into that.
I think Andy has it 85% right. The browser vendors should observe, react, suggest but not vote.It’s well over time that a cat like this was thrown in with the pigeons.
-
#12 On December 14th 2007 at 07:05am Chris Blown said:
Creating and forming agreement on standards is completely different to actually implementing them in a browser. While I don’t know the inner workings of the Working Group I can see that its not really “Working” at much. You may be right to reform the group based on the input of authors rather than implementors, thats sounds fair enough, but I doubt this will have any effect on MS fixing their browser, which is really the crux of the matter.
-
#13 On December 14th 2007 at 08:36am Nick Cowie said:
Will Opera and Microsoft be able to work together on the W3C despite this legal spat. I would expect so. This almost the same spat that the once mighty Netscape had with Microsoft a few years back, I assumed that they still managed to work together to give us HTML4.
Removing browser manufacturers (and employees of other software companies with financial interests) should make the working groups actually function a like working groups and create real standards fairly quickly (yes I heard the horror stories from members of W3C working parties first hand). You will not get a browser manufacturer saying no we can’t have :first-letter because it will take 6,000 lines of code just to implement that standard.
Will removing browser manufacturers and other software companies with financial interests from working groups improve the implementation of standards? I would say it would have the opposite effect. Because they are not involved in the process of creating standards, why should a browser manufacturer implement a standard. There is no legal or major financial reasons for a browser manufacturer to comply to the standards.
So why should a browser manufacturer add :first-letter support as it will take 6,000 lines of code, they might find a quicker solution to implement :first-character for certain elements and only need to write 1000 lines of code. Then you are coding for have a dozen different browsers that all behave quite differently, anybody remeber 1999.
Browser manufacturers and other companies with financial interests need to be involved in the making of standards. With most other standards, companies with financial interests are involved in the process. @Cole Henry odds are a representative of car manufacturers is involved in the process of revising the highway code. (the guys from Top Gear would prefer it to be Aston Martin ;-)
You need browser manufacturers involved to get their buy in. But we need to make sure their position is not dominant, so they can not slow or halt progress on standards that people want. Part of the problem is W3C membership rules which favour big companies and acedemia. That said, unless we change the model big time, the best we can do is lobby the W3C to make the unworking groups more workable by reducing the power/influence browser manufacturers and other companies with financial interests have in the making of standards. </rant>
-
#14 On December 14th 2007 at 10:29am Andy Clarke said:
Thank-you for your comments so far. I think that this is a conversation that very must needs to be had. To answer a few points raised so far:
@Nick Cowie: “Will Opera and Microsoft be able to work together on the W3C despite this legal spat. I would expect so. “
Personally, I doubt that, at least not in any meaningful way. I want to see Opera’s Håkon Wium Lie and CSS Working Group representatives from Microsoft and Bert Bos all make public statements to the effect that this issue will not affect the CSS Working Group.
@Nick Cowie:“Because they are not involved in the process of creating standards, why should a browser manufacturer implement a standard. There is no legal or major financial reasons for a browser manufacturer to comply to the standards.”
@Wilson Miner:“What’s the guarantee that browser makers actually implement standards they had no input on? (I’m actually asking, not being glib.)”
@Jason Campbell: “I mean what law is there that they must abide by these standards once they are set? We certainly can’t rely on them basing their decision to do so on the thought that not doing so will affect their market share can we?”
Microsoft did not work hard to achieve better CSS implementation because they were involved with the development of the standards. They reengineered their browser because of security concerns among their core customer base and other issues.
Despite their trying overly hard to become the developer’s friend, let’s not kid ourselves. Opera is concerned less with standards than they are with increasing their profile and market share. They build a browser with comprehensive support for W3C standards, not because they care about (for example) CSS but because it makes their product offering better to their customers such as Nokia and Nintendo. This is the reason why software companies should (and I think will) continue to implement standards, whether or not their representatives have helped to dream up the ideas, because it makes commercial sense for them to do so.
(Oh, and Nick, you closed a <rant> element that you didn’t open. :))
@Chris Blown: “I doubt this will have any effect on MS fixing their browser, which is really the crux of the matter.”
Microsoft and their fixing of their browser is precisely not the crux of the issue. For the reasons that I outlined above, issue is that we can no longer trust in the browser makers to work together within a spirit of cooperation to further the development of CSS.
@ Jason Campbell: “I can totally understand the desire to exclude the financial goals of these companies from the development of the standards but can that be achieved by denying them a seat at the table?”
As I outlined above, I would not suggest denying them a seat at the table. I am suggesting that it is not, and never should have been the role of browser makers to come up with the tools that we use each day. That job must be placed firmly and squarely with us, the people who use the tools. Browser makers should however assist be providing technical assistance and advice, but as part of a Technical Advisory Panel, not as full members of the CSS Working Group. Their expertise is welcome and needed, but it must be channeled and focussed in the right way.
@Alan Hogan: “However, I don’t think your article quite explains what Opera is doing and how it will affect the working group. I’m a bit fuzzy there right now.”
@Kevin Yank:“But what does this have to do with Opera’s antitrust claim?”
OK, this is the controversial bit that I wrestled with when writing my post. I’m sorry if it came across unclear. That was possibly down to me editing out some of my more aggressive wording.
Here’s the deal. In order to work together on the CSS Working Group, the representatives of corporate companies should leave their affiliations and personal agendas at the door. I have witnessed firsthand that this can be very difficult and it is a credit to Bert Bos’ diplomatic skills that we have come so far.
As he is an active member of the CSS Working Group and must sit in a room and make cooperative decisions with what are essentially his competitors, Håkon Wium Lie’s personal backing of Opera’s actions against Microsoft make his position of the CSS Working Group untenable.
It’s unlikely that without Håkon we would have CSS in any form that we can use everyday. We have a lot to thank him for. But now is a time for change. It is time for the chairman of the CSS Working Group to radically alter the structure, organization and working methods of the group. It is time to change the faces, including Håkon, who has demonstrated through Opera’s actions that we cannot trust browser makers with the keys to our future tools.
@Eric Meyer: “I think your call will be much strengthened by clearly and specifically describing what your proposed group would look like, and how the browser vendors would or wouldn’t be involved in its activity.”
Well I’m no strategist, policy maker or even a good diplomat so it’s not really my strength to be so practical. However, you’re right in what you say and I’ll be writing more when I’ve had a chance to put my practical (red?) head on.
-
#15 On December 14th 2007 at 10:31am Andy Clarke said:
(Also, my apologies for the readability of this template (or lack of it). When I made it, I never intended to have a blog, but that is being rectified.)
-
#16 On December 14th 2007 at 11:00am Tommy Olsson said:
I’m sorry, Andy, but I still don’t get it. Opera says Microsoft should follow the recommendations brought forth by the working group of which Microsoft is a member, thus Opera should leave the group? I’d say it’s a fairly reasonable request that all the group members live up to the decisions the group makes.
And I’m not at all sure it would be a good idea to exclude browser vendors from the CSS working group. A group of designers could demand all sorts of nifty features that would be impossible for vendors to implement.
Although the vendors’ presence might cause progress to slow down, I think they provide an important reality check because of their know-how of actual implementations.
-
#17 On December 14th 2007 at 11:10am Robert O'Callahan said:
What is the connection between Opera’s antitrust lawsuit and your suggested “reform” of the CSS Working Group? It’s totally unclear. Is it because you believe that Opera’s reps and Microsoft’s reps won’t be able to sit down at the same table ever again? If so, say so plainly. Right now you have a non sequitur.
Now, speaking as a Mozilla developer, I don’t see how your proposed changes will help get CSS improvements into the hands of users faster. There is no plot to throttle CSS development, at least not here in Mozilla and I don’t think at Opera or Apple either. The problem is simply that developing a high-performance, stable, secure, standards-compliant, Web-compatible bug-free Web browser is really hard, especially the layout parts, so progress takes time. Cutting browser vendors out CSS standards development would actually slow things down because decisions would be made that are harder to implement than necessary.
-
#18 On December 14th 2007 at 11:30am Andy Clarke said:
@ Robert O’Callahan: “What is the connection between Opera’s antitrust lawsuit and your suggested “reform” of the CSS Working Group? It’s totally unclear.”
There are two issues here. By taking this action, Opera have made their participation alongside Microsoft on the CSS Working Group unworkable. The CSS Working Group must operate in a spirit of cooperation and Opera seems incapable of doing that.
The second and more important issue is whether we want browser makers to be the ones who come up with ideas for, and create the specifications for the tools that we as developers use? I say no, they are not and that the CSS Working must be reformed to include browser makers only as technical advisors (which also answers @Tommy Olsson’s point above about excluding from the group).
-
#19 On December 14th 2007 at 12:21pm Ben Darlow said:
Reading through your article I don’t think the conclusions you’ve come to regarding Opera’s motivations are valid. Yes, Opera are ultimately motivated by business goals in pursuing this legal action, but this is because their business goals revolve around developing standards-compliant web technologies. Having a monopoly player whose competing product is not standards-compliant hurts all rivals who seek to gain more market share through this approach, and it seems to be Opera’s position that Microsoft’s tactics in retaining the position at the head of the pack are anti-competitive. Personally, I agree and so I feel their legal action is legitimate.
Where I totally disagree with your suggestions are in interpreting this as a conflict of interests of the CSS working group as a whole. This might make sense if two or more browser developers were trying to head off in separate directions and away from mutually-accepted standards. It might even make sense if their intentions weren’t in the best interests of web developers or end users, but let’s be clear on this: Opera is not attempting to do either of these things. It is unfair to say that their actions are damaging, since the only potential for damage is from Microsoft deciding to use this as an excuse to walk away from the table. Who would be to blame if that happened?
All of this is orthogonal to the issue of actual implementation. Many very good proposals have come out of the CSS Working Group recently, some of which have already been implemented by browser makers. The pace of development of standards - along with any threat to their continuation - is somewhat irrelevent when those standards that do exist have yet to be implemented across the board. The problems with out-of-date browsers we as web developers ought to be facing should come from users who haven’t yet upgraded, not because these users have upgraded to the most recent version of their browser and it doesn’t support web standards well enough.
I’m also perturbed by the notion of likening the working group process to commercial software development. It is not the role of the CSS working group to produce functioning software. It’s also not necessarily in the interests of a company like Adobe to be creating open standards (even though sometimes it is). The requirements of making (for instance) a file type open and interoperable could easily conflict with the more important goals of creating working, decent software.
It may well be the case that the CSS Working Group is in need of improvement. I’m not a member, nor do I follow its activities on a regular basis so I’m not really best placed to comment on what sort of problems it may face on a day-to-day basis. However I don’t think these proposals will make it any better, nor will they solve the bigger problem of getting existing standards implemented, and this is what Opera is trying to force Microsoft’s hand with regards to.
-
#20 On December 14th 2007 at 12:23pm Mike Loizides said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but at its most basic level the problem is basically about differences in browser rendering and the varying speeds at which improvements filter through to the users/customers.
I think it’s been established that browser makers aren’t really interested in the core stuff like standards. They’d rather spend their development budgets on coming up with all the new bells and whistles to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Having standards compliant rendering probably doesn’t make them any more cash does it?
Would it be a leap too far to imagine that the W3C takes on the task of developing (and maintaining) a core rendering engine that the browser manufacturers can base their browsers on? Everyone gets given the same basic renderer which they can then bolt other stuff onto. So they get more time to come up with those all-important unique selling points that drive revenue.
Am I onto a winner or shall I get my coat?
-
#21 On December 14th 2007 at 01:20pm Chris Mills said:
Chris Mills from Opera here.
I think Andy has got a point - our antitrust complaint *could* destabilize the CSS working group. But I don’t think that would come from our side. A lot of good points have been made here already (especially Ben Darlow, Robert O’Callahan, Jason Campbell) but basically we want what’s best for the standards, hence the complaint in the first place. We are happy to sit alongside MS and the other browser vendors as long as they actually implement the standards as promised, which the other vendors seem willing and able to do.
As a vague related point, it fascinates me how MS can actively work towards standards with one hand, and then actively hinder them with the other (look at what they are trying to do to ECMAScript 4.)
All the browser vendors obviously deserve a seat round the table - it *would* be unfair for us to be expected to implement stuff we have no say in the creation of. But it does need to be a fairer balance between vendors and real world designers/developers, I’d say.
Finally, I’m interested to see what changes IE8 will bring. If they do suppport the standards a whole lot better, then our case will be dissolved somewhat, but it’s what we wanted anyhow!
If you have any questions about Opera’s position in all of this, feel free to mail me at cmills [at] opera [dot] com.
-
#22 On December 14th 2007 at 02:47pm Pete Nelson said:
I agree - the time for browser vendors running the CSS working group has long passed. This may have been important for initial adoption of CSS as an open standard, but at this point, CSS has enough of a following that now the user, consumer should be the ones to chart it’s future.
At this stage in the game, having the browser vendors in the working group can only hold it back, as they struggle against each other for supremacy. CSS does not need to be involved in that noise!
-
#23 On December 14th 2007 at 03:20pm Jason Cockerham said:
Andy, I couldn’t agree more!
Thank you for putting this out there in such a strong manner.
It is easy to see that browser makers are only after creating all the new flashy products. Their interests are not the same as the developers that are in the trenches all day using things like CSS.
Its time to make a change, and Andy, this seems like it could be a great first step.
-
#24 On December 14th 2007 at 03:26pm Matt Wilcox said:
Hear Hear Andy. A ballsy move, but I think one that’ll do some good even if all it does is promote some hard thinking at the W3C.
I have never understood why browser vendors are in any of the W3C focus groups. Obviously for historical reasons, but why they are still there has never made sense to me. I don’t wish to imply that abuse has taken place, I do not know enough to say, but the potential for abuse is absolutely huge.
I wrote a post about my concerns with the browser vendors having too much influence in the W3C almost a year ago. http://mattwilcox.net/archive/entry/id/887/
-
#25 On December 14th 2007 at 03:49pm Ty (tzmedia) said:
Hears a good one, what if you had a gorilla, and a orangutan in the same room?
Thanks for your views, and hard work Andy.
-
#26 On December 14th 2007 at 03:53pm Nick Cowie said:
Andy who said my rant was actually valid ;-)
My main concern is that if the browser vendors get removed from W3C working groups.
1. They would ignore any W3C standards, likely for MS.
2. They would get together and create their own standards. It would be great to see all the browser manufacturers get together and push through some agreed standards that they implement before the W3C releases theirs (highly unlikely and what would it be like for content creators).
3. Have some browser manufacturers follow “their” (individual or collaborative) standards, others follow the W3C standards and some try to do both.I am with Chris Mills, the browser manufacturers need a seat at the table, but the power of the working groups need to be shifted in favour of the working designers and developers.
<rant>The W3C structure is the problem, only companies, educational institutions and government agencies can afford to be members of the W3C, not individuals like you or me. And only members have the say on how the W3C functions, not individuals outside the organisation.</rant>
-
#27 On December 14th 2007 at 04:09pm Andy E said:
So glad somebody of ‘stature’ has stood up and said something. Could not agree with you more.
-
#28 On December 14th 2007 at 04:13pm Neil Deakin said:
You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the specifications. The purpose is to have interoperatabilty for functionality which two or more parties plan to or are currently implementing. Without an actual implementation, the specifications have no value. Significant portions of CSS2 were removed because of this.
Without the main input from those implementing the specs, you end up with specifications that are actually just large author wishlists that will never be implemented. But not because browser manufacturers don’t want to. Trust me, the browser manufacturers (note, I work for Mozilla) do want to implement all this stuff. However, these specificications are very hard to implement. It took a lot of rearchitecting to get Mozilla to handle the acid2 test properly (many months).
I’d like to have specififcations that describe what is feasible to implement and what will be implemented in the near future, as having real implementations of interoperatable functionality is far more useful than what someone can dream up for the distant future.
-
#29 On December 14th 2007 at 05:25pm Geoffrey Sneddon said:
If you look at W3C WGs not developed with implementers involved, you have almost always ended up with vastly over-engineered solutions, that are hard to create content for, and near impossible to actually implement.
WHATWG shows what happens when the W3C takes the route you are suggesting: the people who actually make major UAs write their own specs that are relevant in the real world, and not in some fantasy idealistic one.
-
#30 On December 14th 2007 at 05:49pm Molly E Holzschlag said:
Sitting in the tenuous seat of developer liaison to Microsoft, I have to agree with the general sentiments of this article. Any act of this nature is disruptive, and in this case reactionary and preliminary. Just because we’re having internal issues that are preventing more forthcoming info regarding IE8, I can say that I believe this action threw a wrench into the good work people like I, Chris Wilson and others involved in standards advocacy and evolving browsers work so very hard for. As much as I admire Opera’s innovation over the years, this aggression is unacceptable because it’s about personal agendas rather than promoting the greater good, and couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
Thanks Andy, for speaking up. There is a crisis in Web Standards, no matter how many times my colleagues say there isn’t. This article points to merely one symptom of that complex concern.
-
#31 On December 14th 2007 at 05:51pm Andy Clarke said:
@ Geoffrey Sneddon: “WHATWG shows what happens when the W3C takes the route you are suggesting: the people who actually make major UAs write their own specs that are relevant in the real world, and not in some fantasy idealistic one.”
Oh I agree, please don’t misunderstand me. I might be all about “the tool of production [being] placed in the hands of the people” as Andy Budd commented today, but actually I agree more with d. Keith Robinson who said at Future Of Web Design, “Consensus is for losers”.
We need clear direction, strong leadership and management and not the voice of the crowd. And we do need browser makers as advisors so that the specifications are implementable, but they should now longer be in the driving seat.
@ Neil Deakin: “Without the main input from those implementing the specs, you end up with specifications that are actually just large author wishlists that will never be implemented.”
We could not disagree more. However it is important to say that what authors want most is solutions to their everyday problems that are reliably implemented across various platforms and on that I think we agree.
I also think that its fair to restate at this point. The existing structure, processes and make-up of the CSS Working Group has failed. It is time for a change in all of these areas.
-
#32 On December 14th 2007 at 06:13pm Chris Mills said:
@Molly “I can say that I believe this action threw a wrench into the good work people like I, Chris Wilson and others involved in standards advocacy and evolving browsers work so very hard for. “
Molly, I am very much looking forward to seeing how IE8 changes things…I know IE7 made some positive moves. I hope IE8 renders our complaint null and void (and I really do, this isn’t sarcasm - I honestly just want to help further the cause of the open web/standards.) Maybe we should have a chat about this at some point, to discuss our points of view.
@Molly“As much as I admire Opera’s innovation over the years, this aggression is unacceptable because it’s about personal agendas rather than promoting the greater good, and couldn’t have happened at a worse time.”But the personal agendas of most of us (obviously I can’t speak for us all, as I don’t know everyone at Opera) *are* the greater good. And I believe this is true for my superiors too. Obviously we want more market share, I can’t deny that. But we (especially my immediate team, such as David Storey and myself) just want the best for standards. If IE8 blows our complaint out of the water (well, the standards part at least) then great! I’d be happy to see that.
-
#33 On December 14th 2007 at 06:36pm Jeff Croft said:
Molly said:
As much as I admire Opera’s innovation over the years, this aggression is unacceptable because it’s about personal agendas rather than promoting the greater good, and couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
The fact is, everyone’s actions are about their personal agenda, especially when we’re talking about major corporations who are founded on the idea of making money. I’m not a big fan of Opera’s move here, but anyone who thinks that Opera is a bunch of evil, money-hungry grab-asses and Microsoft is the patron saint of the community—just trying to do what’s best for the web in general and not trying to make money—is kidding themselves.
All of these guys are about making money. And you know what? So am I. So is Andy Clarke. So is Molly Holzschalg. So is Jeffrey Zeldman. And so are Chris Mills and David Storey. I know these people all love the web and care about standards, but that’s because the web and standards ultimately make them a good living. We all have personal agendas, and anyone who tries to tell you theirs is to better the web simply for love of the web, and not to get a paycheck so they can afford a roof over their heads, is either lying through their teeth or has their priorities way, way out of whack.
I love the web, but not more than I love having a paycheck. The same is true for Microsoft and Opera. The sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can face these problem in a realistic way likely to facilitate real change. As long as people keep pretending this is some kind of candy cane-laced fantasy world where we all write specs, build web browsers, speak at conferences, write for publications, put on workshops, and validate our code simply because we love the web more than life itself, we’re never going to get anywhere.
Everyone involved has a personal and commercial agenda. Accept it, and move forward.
-
#34 On December 14th 2007 at 07:24pm Joe Clark said:
Can somebody tell me why the text of this complaint to a government body has not been published yet?
-
#35 On December 14th 2007 at 08:55pm Molly E Holzschlag said:
@Jeff : yes, there are always personal agendas. I agree. What I disagree with is that they are about a paycheck. If it’s this hard, this challenging, this intense to just earn a living, believe me, I’d be settling in at some university and living a very different life.
I cannot speak to others’ drive, but please remember some of us have been in IT far longer than the web. My passion for the advancement of this technology is, for me, a calling that transcends any pay, and I would be happy to show you my debt load in case you needed real evidence :)
-
#36 On December 14th 2007 at 09:22pm Jeff Croft said:
Molly:
What I disagree with is that they are about a paycheck. If it’s this hard, this challenging, this intense to just earn a living, believe me, I’d be settling in at some university and living a very different life.
Fair enough. I mean, we could argue this point, but there’s no reason to. My point was that there are always personal agendas and that expecting a major corporation like Opera (or Microsoft) to act like someone who simply loves the web and is doing all of this out of the goodness of their heart is foolish. It sounds like you agree with me on that.
I cannot speak to others’ drive, but please remember some of us have been in IT far longer than the web.
I include myself in those people that were involved in IT before the web, Molly. I’ve been at this whole web thing full-time for 14 years (got my first full-time web job in ‘94). And, like you, I certainly wouldn’t be doing it if I didn’t love it.
I wasn’t attacking anyone’s drive. I understand that you, Andy, myself, and many others are passionate about this medium. But, I wouldn’t do it for free—and if you would, I would definitely question your sanity. :)
-
#37 On December 14th 2007 at 09:48pm Molly E Holzschlag said:
@Jeff: Well, my sanity has been questioned quite a few times and has always been found lacking ;)
Quite seriously, I do very often work either for free or pay for the privilege. This is part of my philosophy, and I’d like to call on others to consider that giving back - whether via pro bono design/dev work for underfunded agencies or causes; showing up at your local special interest groups and talking about your passions for the sheer joy of connecting with like minded others; doing things like attending SXSW, or participating somehow in Train the Trainer events or other “pay it forward” activities - this is the stuff that NO greedy corporation can influence.
We are the people. It is our Web. It will not belong to Microsoft, or the W3C, or Opera, or anyone. If at any time it becomes so monopolistic that agendas are purely economy-driven rather than driven by the desire to raise the bar on all things human, to me the Web will have died a sad and wrong death.
This is why we have to keep these conversations going, no matter who we are, where we are, and how we approach our work. At the end of all this, what matters is we made a difference and held the greater good for all.
Idealistic? You bet. Optimistic? Not really so sure anymore, alas.
-
#38 On December 14th 2007 at 10:22pm Jeff Croft said:
Molly, I respect and admire your idealism. I really do. I just think expecting Opera and Microsoft to act out of “love for the web,” as you do, and not out of financial interests, is setting yourself up for disappointment.
What’s more, if we don’t collectively realize that these company have real, commercial interests in our web, we’ll never be able to establish ways of working with them that satisfy both sides.
I guess the point is this: for any two parties to come to some kind of agreement, they first need to understand and accept each other’s agendas.
If at any time it becomes so monopolistic that agendas are purely economy-driven rather than driven by the desire to raise the bar on all things human, to me the Web will have died a sad and wrong death.
I never said, nor did I mean, purely economy-driven. I believe most of these companies are inherently good and want to do special things with the web. But while that goal does exist, it will always be secondary to making money.
People can try to change that all they want, but they will fail, and they will be disappointed. A better tact, in my opinion, is to understand and accept their agendas, and then try to find ways to work together that satisfy the agendas of all parties involved.
-
#39 On December 15th 2007 at 02:23am michel said:
If we cannot trust browser vendors with CSS, we surely cannot trust them with HTML5.
-
#40 On December 15th 2007 at 03:30am David Baron said:
I disagree with the claim that browser developers only want small improvements in standards. Many of us—particularly those of us whose interests are aligned with seeing the Web as a successful platform—want both small improvements and big steps forward.
We want small improvements in the details of the spec because we get complaints every time something works differently in different browsers, and we need something that says who’s right and who’s wrong, and a forum to discuss the issue when the existing spec isn’t clear. This lets us actually improve browser interoperability rather than each hiding in our respective corners and saying “the spec isn’t clear, and *our* way is better.” This refinement doesn’t stop: as standards become more mature, authors expect more precise interoperability, because *somebody* is always pushing the edges of what can be done with any heavily used Web technology.
We also want big improvements too. We want these so we can make the Web a better place for users and a better place for authors to reach those users (easier for authors to produce content, easier for *more* authors to do so, etc.). Building entirely new capabilities into standards is a lot of work. Going from “we want to be able to do X” or “we want a better way to do Y” to having the best way to do X in place and usable by authors is a lot of work. First, you need to figure out what exactly the best way to do X is, where best is determined by how easy it is for authors to use, how good the result is for users, and how long it will take to get that result in place (spec writing and implementation). There are lots of hard trade-offs involved. Then you need to write a spec, and (if you want interoperability) a test suite, and then (if you succeed in getting implementations) you need to continue through many cycles of the refinement process I described above.
As Mozilla’s representative to the CSS working group, and one of a relatively small number of active people on the group (although not as active as some other people), I find all the things to do here overwhelming. There’s a long list of things that I think the CSS working group should do immediately, but I just can’t do all of them. Given that standards work is only a part of my job (currently, at least), I often don’t have time to do any of them.
I strongly agree that the group should become more public and try to change so that it is welcoming to contributions. That said, potential contributors need to understand that developing a successful spec is hard work and might not be quite what they expect. And I don’t think trying to kick the browser makers out will help you any—you’ll lose a lot of expertise about existing specifications *and how they interact with each other*, and you’ll find it harder to get implementations of specs whose design didn’t take cost of implementation (and thus time-to-wide-deployment) into account.
-
#41 On December 15th 2007 at 04:42am david blanchet said:
I actually cant make an informed comment on the article but I enjoyed and fully understand both sides of Jeff’s and Molly’s mini-debate. I think if the changes Andy calls for are taken seriously I would like to see Andy, Jeff and Molly on that new board.
( though I would tend to lean more towards what Jeff was saying just from understanding what being in business is about )
-
#42 On December 15th 2007 at 05:57am zeldman said:
Andy:
I’m glad you’re expressing your concerns so forcefully; the web standards movement is painfully in need of leaders.
But like others I don’t see a connection between Opera’s lawsuit and your call for the disbanding of the CSS working group. Apple and Microsoft and Netscape and Sun and Opera have been suing each other since the W3C started. What lawyers do has never stopped developers from Apple and Microsoft and Netscape and Sun and Opera from working together to craft W3C and ECMA specs.
And even if this time is different—even if, just this once, the existence of a lawsuit will stop a working group from working—I’m not sure it’s practical or advisable to cut browser makers out of the equation. For one thing, have you seen what the W3C comes up with when browser developers *aren’t* involved?
I can’t comment on the merits of Opera’s legal action *because it is a legal action* and I’m not a lawyer, let alone a lawyer well versed in European antitrust law.
Based on past history, I don’t think the lawsuit will prevent the members of the CSS working group from doing their jobs. If it does, then the title of your post will be borne out, and Bert Bos, as group leader, will take action.
The web standards movement needs leaders who are passionate, but their leadership must also make sense. Proposing change when the change makes sense is good. Proposing change because you are disappointed and frustrated isn’t good enough. Anger can be brilliantly motivating; but anger is not a strategy.
-
#43 On December 15th 2007 at 06:13am zeldman said:
And on a lighter note, Jeff Croft said:
All of these guys are about making money. And you know what? So am I. So is Andy Clarke. So is Molly Holzschalg. So is Jeffrey Zeldman.
Do you actually know Andy or Molly? I can assure you they are not in this for the money. Standards evangelizing is not the road to riches. People fighting for standards sacrifice priceless business opportunities, not to mention their social life and sometimes their health. They don’t do it for money. They do it because somebody has to do it.
It’s a small point compared to the big problems of how to craft standards, and who should create them, and whether they are moving in the right direction. But it’s an important point to the people whose motivation you misunderstand.
-
#44 On December 15th 2007 at 07:09am thacker said:
Clark asked:
Can somebody tell me why the text of this complaint to a government body has not been published yet?
Good question. Would be an interesting read. What is more interesting and what may render this discussion moot [providing similar legal procedure exists in the EU that is present within the US] is whether the Opera suit passes Summary Judgment.
What does need serious discussion and change is the entire model for standards development.
-
#45 On December 15th 2007 at 11:48am KatB said:
I would like to thank Andy for his great courage and honesty. I appreciate how difficult the decision to publish this must have been. I think it is fantastic that you have published this, that there is this open debate. Good on you! :)
-
#46 On December 15th 2007 at 01:56pm Chris Blown said:
@Andy: Issue is that we can no longer trust in the browser makers to work together within a spirit of cooperation to further the development of CSS.
Absolutely, this is extremely important, and I agree it is the crux of your post. Though I have to inquire, when exactly have we ever been able to trust them?
-
#47 On December 15th 2007 at 02:49pm Gilbert said:
@Joe Clark “Can somebody tell me why the text of this complaint to a government body has not been published yet?”
Because we are European and still at lunch.
The reality is that it’ll be sitting in the post room of the Commission waiting to go through a process of registration and get a file number etc. But it’ll probably pop up on this page if the Commission’s site in the next few(working) days.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/news.html
It’ll then be given a case number and be a lot easier to follow.
If it was a merger, then they’d have to give a response within 30 days, but my understanding is that as it is a complaint, there isn’t such a tight deadline to respond.
-
#48 On December 15th 2007 at 03:35pm Ingo Chao said:
This paper misses a statement about /how/ this new working group should be formulated. It is unclear who they will represent without a election mechanism, and there is yet no infrastructure for that. It remains unclear what will qualify this new group to edit a specification. It is unclear how they will reflect “our” needs. The current working group representatives are sitting at a table because of vendors’ interests. And the new group should meet because of ... good intentions, right? But what mechanism will prevent this new group from getting blocked by personal agendas?
Like the last cry for crisis, this paper shows that an analysis is what we need, and good journalism first. Tell me the evidence that the current working group is not working. Currently, this all makes no revolution.
-
#49 On December 15th 2007 at 05:02pm Alan Gresley said:
I praised Håkon Lie for his courageous move. After a year of rumor about IE8 it took Molly E Holzschlag to cautiously question Bill Gates about transparency before anything happened and what did happen, an announcement by Dean Hachamovitch that the IE team is indeed working on a new version of IE and that it would be called (drum roll) IE8.
Håkon Lie actions is about Browsers Supporting Standards and an Open Web, how does this relate to the workings of the CSSWG?
-
#50 On December 15th 2007 at 05:53pm thacker said:
Chao stated:
“Like the last cry for crisis, this paper shows that an analysis is what we need, and good journalism first. Tell me the evidence that the current working group is not working. Currently, this all makes no revolution.”
Ingo—
The key evidence for CSS, in my view, are efficiency, speed of delivery and adoption. Zeldman had an article a few weeks back that discussed why the Web is not print or multi-media and that client perceptions of Web content is contrary to that. In my view, there exists no logical reason why Internet communication could not be capable of the merging the best of traditional Web, print and multi-media communications. One thing that may be holding that back is development and implementation of CSS into browsers. The client perceptions, in my view, are being driven primarily by market forces.
Your point of “analysis is what we need” is on target, I believe. It implies the need for a first step of establishment of a strategic objective. “[...] this call makes no revolution” is more of a tactical observation. My point is that we cannot yet afford to make tactical observations until tactical objectives have been defined. And when we do make those types of observations, as is human nature, we should not allow them to rationalize ourselves into in action.
———————————————-
There is a lot of turmoil occurring within the Web that will precipitate a revolution and its subsequent evolution. The financial and consumer markets are driving it. This is indicated, for example, within the social networking environments and push into open data. The traditional standards development model will not be able to keep pace. Reality is, in my view, that standards will, also, need to embrace social, moral and legal standards development to preclude misuse and subsequent governmental intervention.
My opinion is that Berners-Lee needs to abandon the consensus model, approach a few very good investment banking firms and business schools, ask some hard questions, get some hard answers and look at the possibility of using a more traditional business model for standards development.
One of the historical perspectives of the Internet may very well point out to be: “approach with caution on what is given away”. Rarely is the reduction, on a broad scale, of the natural filter of cost [including non-monetary forms] a good thing.
-
#51 On December 15th 2007 at 06:02pm Amit said:
I can understand the frustration of opera and believe it’s not only a money game or publicity stunt. But it is not a right move to complain at any government body.
It can have a negative effect on implementing the web standards, which is the aim of complaint.@Zeldman: I can’t comment on the merits of Opera’s legal action *because it is a legal action* and I’m not a lawyer, let alone a lawyer well versed in European antitrust law.
Perhaps no body is lawyer here but expressing their views. I think expressing our views as a web developer will help to improve implementing of web standards.
-
#52 On December 15th 2007 at 06:58pm malokey said:
“Opera is concerned less with standards than they are with increasing their profile and market share.”
That’s the great thing about this.
Opera can raise the profile of not only itself, but also other alternative browsers. It can get more market share, but so can other alternative browsers. And Microsoft will be forced to stop their lock-in and anti-competitive practices, opening up for actual competition.
This benefits not only Opera, but the ENTIRE market, including web developers.
“They build a browser with comprehensive support for W3C standards, not because they care about (for example) CSS but because it makes their product offering better to their customers such as Nokia and Nintendo.”
Actually, Opera cares about CSS. Opera’s CTO *invented* CSS. Opera cares about all standards, because open standards is what allows companies like Opera to compete.
What you don’t realize is that open standards are a KEY PART of Opera’s ability to compete.
Open standards is not about showing off to customers. It is all about an open market place.
“The CSS Working Group must operate in a spirit of cooperation and Opera seems incapable of doing that.”
Opera is more than capable of that. However, Microsoft is not, as is evident from their recent FUD campaigns against EcmaScript 4.
Mike Loizides:
“I think it’s been established that browser makers aren’t really interested in the core stuff like standards.”
So that is why Opera, Mozilla and lately Apple have invested millions in open standards? Yeah, that must be it. -
#53 On December 15th 2007 at 07:01pm Jeff Croft said:
Zeldman said:
Do you actually know Andy or Molly?
I’ve spent some time with both of them, but I would never claim to know them really well. I’m sorry if that statement came off as any kind of attack. It wasn’t intended to be. My point was simply that we ALL have personal agendas. Whether it’s a paycheck, some degree of celebrity, better tools to work with (so that you can ultimately do better works, get more clients, make money money), etc.—everyone has SOME reason for being in this game, and if we look really hard at ourselves, I think we would all admit that we don’t ONLY do this for the love of the web.
I do it to support my daughter and family, have a roof over my head, because I enjoy the traveling, because I love the people in this community, because it pays me fairly well, because I want to further my career, etc. But I ALSO do it because I love the web, and I know you all do, too.
It was supposed to be a comparison to Opera and Microsoft. I have no doubt the folks in those companies DO love the web. But, they’re still commercial entities with the goals of making money. If we aren’t able to understand that, accept it, and work within that parameter, we’re never going to be on the same page as them.
Everyone has personal agendas—companies and individuals. That’s not a bad thing. It’s just the reality.
-
#54 On December 15th 2007 at 07:12pm malokey said:
“But it is not a right move to complain at any government body.”
Who else is going to break up illegal cartels and address anti-competitive practices?
“It can have a negative effect on implementing the web standards”
How?
-
#55 On December 15th 2007 at 08:27pm Amit said:
@ malokey
Beautiful things don’t rise in an environment where you are forced to do something.
I think it is responsibility of browser vendors to implement web standards to their products and I think that they are also committed for that. Yes, the intensity of commitment can be more or less. But a healthy environment can be built on the ground of understanding.
But when you try to do something by law, than the effort looses its grace.
I think instead of legal action, an open request to Microsoft can be much effective.
-
#56 On December 15th 2007 at 10:29pm Bridget Stewart said:
@Mike Loizides (#20) I noticed your comment and got to wondering about that myself.
http://shallowthoughts.org/2007/12/15/w3c-developed-core-browser-engine/
-
#57 On December 16th 2007 at 01:48am Albert Che said:
You can find a reply to your post here Cheap Pharmacy
-
#58 On December 16th 2007 at 04:01am steve said:
“But when you try to do something by law, than the effort looses its grace.
I think instead of legal action, an open request to Microsoft can be much effective”
WTF?
rofl…
p.S. I’m not laughing at the spelling/grammer
-
#59 On December 16th 2007 at 09:39am malokey said:
Open requests to Microsoft have been tried for many years, but they still work hard on sabotaging open standards, like the EcmaScript 4 mess. This proves that they will never improve despite promises to the contrary for many years.
-
#60 On December 16th 2007 at 09:56am Daniel Glazman said:
Only a deep sense of politeness prevents me from telling precisely here what I think of your post, Andy.
Your participation in the CSS WG as an invited expert, that you raise as a battle flag, is so young that you posted only 26 messages to our mailing-list in the last twelve months, and you remained silent on the process itself, on the WG itself.
About the process itself of standardization in the CSS WG, I have two choices here ; you’re incredibly naive or incredibly out of your mind. A collaborative non-partisan discussion ? BWAHAHAHA ! What do you think is a standardization body ? It’s a BATTLEFIELD where vendors fight for competitive advantage. And that fight is not quiet or non-violent. Outside of that fight, we’re all friends, we’ve been working together for so long that we know each other very well, it’s a small world after all. But we all remain fierce competitors.
Read me well, because I am an old monkey, a very old monkey, in this standardization business. The more I see the crazy mess HTML 5 is becoming, the more I trust corporations in member-only discussions inside W3C. Bringing more individuals with no knowledge of the internals of a layout engine will NOT help improving CSS. We certainly need input from the designers’ community, we need feedback too. But designers will always remain unable to say if a given feature is easily implementable or not.
I am really shocked by your post, and I seriously wonder what you are looking for, productivity increase or advertisement on your name.
-
#61 On December 16th 2007 at 12:12pm Andy Clarke said:
@ Daniel Glazman: Thanks for your reply. I appreciate how experienced you are in the standardization business and I think that you made the case that change is urgently needed far more eloquently than I could have done.
To answer your final question, I’m looking for change in the CSS development and standardization process that will help me and those people who work with CSS every day. If I were wanting a publicity stunt, I would ski naked down Whistler next month or, perhaps, file a suit against Microsoft.
-
#62 On December 16th 2007 at 01:53pm Alex Mogilevsky said:
As a browser developer (working on Internet Explorer) I would love to have a standards working group that creates beautiful, usable, implementable standards which make new great creative things possible for web developers. Really. Just tell me what is the best thing to do and I’ll implement that.
Whatever problems CSSWG has, I am not sure it is the presence of browser vendors. Certainly without us some things could go faster, but if somebody has to implement the standards, wouldn’t it help to be involved?
I am a relatively new member of CSSWG. So far I haven’t seen any other ways to create a web standard. The process could be faster, it needs to be faster, and I am glad that posts like yours add publicity to the working group and I am sure it will help find a solution. If it does in fact involve destroying CSSWG so be it, as long as we get a direction to move our browsers to. But I grew up in Soviet Union and I’ve learned to consider what you plan to create before you break what you have…
Let’s look for ways to move faster. Andy, I’ll join you in skiing naked if it helps. Or maybe we can find other ways to actually make things happen…
Oh, BTW, I haven’t seen anything in the news or in my inbox that would change how we work with Opera on standards development. -
#63 On December 16th 2007 at 03:24pm Alan Gresley said:
@ Alex Mogilevsky
It is nice to have someone from Microsoft say something. The actions by Håkon Lie should not become connected to the workings of the CSSWG as the opaqueness, de facto standards, etc of microsoft should not become connected to the workings of the CSSWG. It time now that we all embraced the OPEN WEB.
I would like the person or persons responsible for what IE has become and the person or persons responsible for the opaqueness of Microsoft to help some newbies on a CSS mailing with there web page that shows quirky in IE. And then after 3 months time, doing exactly the same thing over and over. It does become tiresome sometimes, but I myself still do it, but I do need to rest some times from it.
@ Andy Clarke
When was the last time that you did similar Andy. This blog entry it seems is your first public action as a member of the CSS eleven. What have a learned from you about CSS standards by your blog entry. Nothing.
It was a welcome surprise to see Fantasai helping a newbie recently on such a list. Is she included in this cull that you propose Andy. She does work for the Mozilla foundation.
-
#64 On December 16th 2007 at 03:36pm Daniel Glazman said:
Oh yes, absolutely, I said changes are needed in the CSS WG. I even repeated it during our last face-to-face meeting. But I never said “CSS WG delenda est” !!!
As I said on my blog a while ago, the CSS WG is an island of pragmatism and stability in the ocean of W3C standardization. I see no reason at all to dismantle it. -
#65 On December 16th 2007 at 04:17pm Stephen Preston said:
Removing vendors from the standards working group would only result in an even more fragmented “standards compliant” browser marketplace. Without vendor input into the discussion of standards, vendors will end up picking and choosing whatever standards they deem necessary or able to implement in their product.
It would end up a mess, with every vendor supporting varying levels of standardization (or none at all). This is exactly the opposite of what Opera’s anti-trust claim is all about. At present, we have only Microsoft who chooses not to work towards maintaining a product capable of basic standards compliance. Without vendor input, every product would end up as a mish-mash of whatever the vendor needs it to be, and I reckon this kind of environment would ensure Microsoft’s continued dominance of the browser market. I’m sure that this sad future is exactly what Microsoft would love to happen.
Opera’s decision to ask the EU to intervene is the finale in a battle that has been brewing for a decade. It’s time for Microsoft to fess up and understand that if they don’t follow web standards, it’s them versus the rest of the browser vendors.
-
#66 On December 16th 2007 at 04:19pm michel said:
@ Daniel Glazman wrote “What do you think is a standardization body ? It’s a BATTLEFIELD where vendors fight for competitive advantage.”
Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe you do not realize that you and some of your colleagues are contributing to the problem.
In most developed countries, laws and regulations are written by people who don’t have a financial stake in those laws and regulations. Commercial interests have an opportunity to lobby the law makers according to strict rules. Standards for the web should be written in the same manner. The current process is not working. Or maybe you think that things are fine as they are?
-
#67 On December 16th 2007 at 04:51pm Daniel Glazman said:
@Michel : I try to live in the real world.
-
#68 On December 16th 2007 at 05:37pm Andy Clarke said:
I have now written a follow up yo this entry and some concrete CSS Working Group proposals
I would be grateful if you would direct your comments there.
-
#69 On December 16th 2007 at 06:02pm fantasai said:
Actually, for the record, I’m currently (as of last March) contracting for HP. But I have been with the Mozilla Project for a very long time. :)
Andy, I believe my colleagues David Baron, Robert O’Callahan, Alex Mogilevsky, and Daniel Glazman have said more eloquently much of what I would myself have written. The CSSWG absolutely needs more designer input, but not at the expense of losing the technical expertise we already have.
As I have written before we would welcome any capable spec writers, whether they are implementors or not. But spec writing is not a common skill. I fully expect that a spec written by designers will include a lot of interesting ideas with stunning examples.. and not much else useful. It will not have the practicality of one written by implementors, and it will not have the precision required of a technical standard. There’s no doubt in my mind that we need to hear about those ideas, but the better way to do that is to write up and present them to a technical Working Group through a designer Advisory Board, not the other way ‘round.
-
#70 On December 16th 2007 at 06:46pm Andrei said:
I couldn’t agree more.
Having browser vendors participate in the development of standards is the web equivalent of having car manufacturers participate in the drafting of emission policies.
-
#71 On December 17th 2007 at 03:32am David Ross said:
Four years ago, I retired after a 40+ year career as a software engineer (starting before the term “software engineer” was coined). During most of my career, I tested software used to operate and control military space satellites. However, I also worked on a number of projects writing the specifications from which such software was later developed.
From my experience, good specifications require EQUAL input from both users and developers. That is, for CSS, both Web developers and browser developers both need full participation. Relegating the browser developers to less than full participation creates the likelihood that specifications can be written that cannot be implemented. Similarly, without full participation of Web developers, specifications can be written that are elegant but clumsy to use if not entirely useless.
I have not been a member of the CSSWG. However, I have been observing from the outside for several years (since before I retired). I see inordinate delays in reaching conclusions (e.g., final “Recommendation”) on CSS2.1 and the various parts of CSS3, most of which is years behind schedule. Thus, reorganizing the CSSWG may indeed be necessary. I just don’t agree with downgrading the participation of those who must implement the results.
-
#72 On December 17th 2007 at 09:56am Mike Whitehurst said:
I must have totally missed the point. Opera complains that Microsoft limits the development of standards, and you want to disband the working group. Are you retarded?
(Malarkey says: No Mike, but you are very mistaken if you think that I’ll put up with behavior like that. I will not tolerate personal insults on this site, against me or any of my guests. If you have bothered to read any of the recent entries, you’ll have noticed that there are strong opinions, but at no time has anyone crossed the line into personal insults. You’re welcome to comment when you can keep a civil tongue. Otherwise please go and hang out with the other trolls on Digg and YouTube until you grow up.)
-
#73 On December 17th 2007 at 08:45pm Dan Brickley said:
Have you tried drafting a charter and participation rules for such a renewed group? Whatever the current problems, it might be better to have a more detailed plan for putting things back together, before taking them apart.
-
#74 On December 17th 2007 at 10:42pm Joe Clark said:
Now, now, Daniel, you’re playing the same numbers racket WCAG WG did: They might kick you out if you haven’t participated “enough” – which, ironically, might be due to illness or disability. (Do some checking. That actually happened. Well, it was the cover story, at least.)
Of course you’re not suggesting Andy should be *removed* from the CSS WG, but you pretty much are standing on your front porch yelling “Hey, kid! Get off my lawn!” I’m not sure how much more “experience” (read “hazing”) Andy would have to suffer through before being allowed to speak by the politburo. It seems apparent to everyone not on the CSS WG that Andy has quite enough knowledge of CSS and the Working Group to call for its disbanding if he so chooses.
Although of course such calls have tended not to get anywhere before. You could do some checking there, too.
-
#75 On December 17th 2007 at 10:46pm Daniel Glazman said:
@ Joe : “It seems apparent to everyone not on the CSS WG that Andy has quite enough knowledge of CSS and the Working Group”.
No, it’s not apparent to me he has enough knowledge of the Working Group or of standardization processes, sorry.
-
#76 On December 18th 2007 at 09:40am Andy Clarke said:
@ Daniel Glazman: I’ll write up some further thoughts later (over on the other entry), but in response to your comment.
No, I am not as experienced as you in the standardization process, after-all I’m a designer. But (how many times do I need to say it?) in developing CSS3, the CSS Working Group is not in the standardization business. It is in (or should be in) the creativity business.
-
#77 On December 18th 2007 at 09:57am Daniel Glazman said:
@ Andy : creativity is the root of the process, ok ; yes, we add features to allow more creativity ; then only implementors know what’s feasible or not, what’s strategically interesting to them, what are the priorities of the market, of their customers. A spec like CSS is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration.
-
#78 On December 18th 2007 at 10:26am James Howat said:
While this proposal doesn’t sound like a bad idea, I’m with the others who ask exactly how this “calls into question whether we can trust browser vendors and their representatives”.
The big issue here, the whole point of the complaint, is not about the technical staff on the ground that are discussing standards and doing implementation. It’s about the managers, those who allocate resources and dictate business strategy.
I don’t see the IE team being unable to interoperate with Mozilla or Opera unless they’re told not to.
-
#79 On December 19th 2007 at 01:00pm wendy said:
Sounds horribly like that eternal struggle between developers and designers,
designer: but i NEED the drop shadow over the gradient regardless of how far the page stretches
developer: that will take twice as long for me to code as it would if you get rid of the drop shadow…
who wins depends on which way the company and client lean but having been a front end developer for many years I have to wonder, how many limitations are only a matter of the developers feeling it would be quicker to do what THEY think is a compromise… and just how intimidated is the “creative team” by the developers esoteric jargon and steely glares?
Im also not sure how the Opera issue and the vendor trust issues are connected but if a shake up will move things along faster why the hell not. -
#80 On December 20th 2007 at 01:09am fantasai said:
@Andy: You wrote
I want to see Opera’s Håkon Wium Lie and CSS Working Group representatives from Microsoft and Bert Bos all make public statements to the effect that this issue will not affect the CSS Working Group.
-
#81 On December 20th 2007 at 01:52am Andy Clarke said:
@ Fantasai: Elika. Thank-you for writing that post on the Working Group blog. I’m sure that many people will be happy to see that. I’m also sure that many people, including myself, are also happy to see how passionate you are about the CSS Working Group as that is what is needed, passion. I know that I’m not alone in being really passionate about CSS and wanting to make it everything that designers deserve it to be. We may differ in approach and opinions, but a respectful, non-personal dialogue can never be a bad thing.
I’m sure that you will also see that although some, including yourself, do not agree with my hypothesis that Opera’s actions will damage the working group; the issues surrounding the design and development of CSS go far deeper than that.
You will also have seen that a great many people are dissatisfied with a number of aspects and these valuable discussions have given them another forum. I sincerely hope that everyone involved will realize that the changes that people are asking for must be taken seriously.
-
#82 On December 20th 2007 at 05:20am fantasai said:
@Andy: “some, including yourself”—I am the least of the three people whose perspectives are represented in that blog post. I am disappointed that you discount the two people who really count.
I can see from these discussions—and dozens of previous discussions—that people are dissatisfied. And certainly I agree that there is room for improvement. However I have not seen in these discussions any practical suggestions for improvement. People can demand all kinds of changes; that doesn’t mean they are workable.
James Bennett posted a philosophical quote that I think is very relevant here:
“Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.”
If you want to read the monk’s speech for the issue at hand, David Baron’s comment here summarized it. If you want to tear down a lamppost, you’d better understand how and why it exists else you have little chance of building a better replacement. Like Daniel Glazman, I am pretty convinced by your recent actions that in your real but shallow experience of the CSS Working Group’s operations you have not acquired such an understanding.
Finally, if we’re going to have a discussion we had better have a very personal discussion, Andy, because if no one takes personal responsibility nothing gets done. Passion can fuel accomplishment, but unless you are feeding it into the engine of action all it creates is hot air.
-
#83 On December 22nd 2007 at 06:58pm elias said:
Can’t we all just get along?
I’m no expert nor claim to be. I’m a piddly little graduate student. One thing I know is that change only comes when people voice their opinions, and express themselves. Otherwise, nothing will happen?
Can’t you/we just ‘agree to disagree,’ and move forward?
Thanks to everyone who’s been teaching me, if you know it or not. Wishing everyone all the best and Happy Holidays to you and your loved ones.
Cheers,
elias
About Stuff and Nonsense
Stuff and Nonsense is a small, but popular web design studio, founded and led by designer and author Andy Clarke. We started back in 1998 and have built a enviable reputation for creating highly effective web sites, ecommerce stores and web applications for our clients.
Want to work with us?
Send us an email or fill in our project sheet and well send you an outline quote within one week.
Download our request for quotation sheet in Word format (60kb) or PDF format (150kb).
