Does anyone pay attention to standards?

"spaghetti" <spaghetti (AT) aspyre (DOT) net> wrote

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:06:19 GMT, Isaac Grover <ephesys (AT) myexcel (DOT) com
wrote:

Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at
as guidlines for web design?

Why do I pay attention to standards? I'm on dial-up, and have respect for
other dial-up users.

I know people who consider dial-up users the minority when in fact we are
MAJORITY. It reminds me a few years back when programmers weren't so
concerned about "code bloat" because computers were continually getting
better and bigger, so the time spent streamlining code didn't seem worth
it. Then along came handheld devices, where streamlined code was
mandatory...

I completely agree, I am also A dialup user and Not likely to have the
option of broadband for
many years to come, not due to price but due to living in a remote area with
no access (I don't even get
mobile reception) Just under %90 of Australian Internet users are on dialup
and pages with lots
of non standard bloat make for a very unpleasant and fustrating surfing
experience.

I design pages for Australian business with Australian customers who need
standard complient fast loading
pages to make a good impression.

Trusylver

Stan McCann stan (AT) surecann (DOT) com wrote:

<snip>You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?<snip>

Actually the W3C only publishes recommendations. The only Internationally
recognized standards are promulgated by the ISO. In the case of HTML ..........

http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.html

James Pickering

James Pickering wrote:

Stan McCann stan (AT) surecann (DOT) com wrote:

snip>You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?<snip

Actually the W3C only publishes recommendations. The only Internationally
recognized standards are promulgated by the ISO. In the case of HTML ..........

http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.html

Interesting point; as well as true. But, in my opinion, it's semantics.
Much of what is in the "standard" refer to the "recommendation." IMO,
they are, for all practical purposes, the same thing. The
recommendations are much easier to read and understand.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked)
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Stan McCann wrote:

Toby A Inkster wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:42:05 -0600, Stan McCann wrote:

You and I don't set the standards.

I do. This page:

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/textsize/

uses my very own HTML standard (based on HTML 4.01 Strict).

If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.

SGML is an ISO standard. HTML is a W3C recommendation. XHTML is a
W3C trademarked product. Hence or otherwise deduce which are
literally standards.

However, the cited document isn't useful in SGML terms without some
way for users to get a copy of the author's MyHTML4 DTD.

Brendan Taylor <temp (AT) fungoid (DOT) dot.dyndns.dot.org> wrote

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:41:01 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:

In article <pan.2004.04.23.19.26.09.218043 (AT) lionsanctuary (DOT) net>,
angstrom (AT) lionsanctuary (DOT) net says...
And if I disagree with them?
Publish your own. Convince others to use it. Provide tools and support
for your standard. Document how and why it's better than the existing
standards.

Or only use the pieces I want to make it work the way I want it to,
which is what 99% of the entire web does right now.

Which is most certainly not a good thing.
If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.

Not everyone thinks the recommendations (which is what they are) are a
Great Thing(tm). Have a read of Jukka Korpela's review of HTML 4. I
agree with him every step of the way when it comes to <object>. Most
over-engineered implementation the W3C ever dreamed up. Why
reduplicate the <embed> tag? Because the W3C didn't dream it up?
<embed> is proprietary, you say? So where <frame>'s at one stage, so
was <layer>, but a lot of its functionality ended up in CSS...

And what purpose does <q> serve? Short in-line quotations...something
that typing out "this is a quote!" couldn't do to begin with?
No wonder browsers were slow to pick that one up.

For the most part, I agree with the W3C recommendations, but those who
write them definitely need to refine their Keep It Simple, Stupid
theories. (as well as bone up on what the word "illegal" means in the
English language.)

'Later
Peter

---
http://www.ulujain.org/

Hierarchy of the header element is rigidly enforced. For example, H4 is not
allowed to precede H3 at any place in a document.

Numerous W3C HTML 4.01 elements are refined in ISO-HTML and some attributes are
omitted from the standard (" .....they have been omitted because they are used
to describe appearance rather than structure, or because the feature is
considered to be still too unstable or immature for an International Standard
......").

Style sheets must be linked -- embedded style constructs are not allowed.

The ISO standard mandates separation of content from presentation

My apologies, my previous post was a premature submission -- it should have
been:

Stan McCann stan (AT) surecann (DOT) com wrote:

Interesting point; as well as true. But, in my opinion, it's semantics.
Much of what is in the "standard" refer to the "recommendation." IMO,
they are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.<snip

There are actually some significant differences:

In the ISO standard hierarchy of the header element is rigidly enforced. For
example, H4 is not allowed to precede H3 at any place in a document.

Numerous W3C HTML 4.01 elements are refined in ISO-HTML and some attributes are
omitted from the standard (" .....they have been omitted because they are used
to describe appearance rather than structure, or because the feature is
considered to be still too unstable or immature for an International Standard
......" -- from the specification).

Style sheets must be linked -- embedded style constructs are not allowed.

The ISO standard mandates separation of content from presentation.

BTW, you can substitute the W3C HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE (strict DTD) for the ISO
DOCTYPE on any validated ISO-HTML document and it will validate as HTML 4.01
(strict) -- it does not necessarily work in reverse, however.

James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/

In article <108ir88m3qqf0d9 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says...

keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,
Well, that is certainly true. They seem to play to the www's weaknesses
instead of its strengths.

To many of the purist here, but in the real world (fortune 500), it is
the exact opposite. Now if they change, then I will change too. But
they see no financial gain from doing so, and neither do I.

because THAT is what drives people to their site, not search results.
Oh? And how, praytell, did you reach that conclusion? Because what I've
read suggests that the 2 means of getting visitors to your site are
search engines and email referrals. (I cannot find Jakob Nielsen's
column that discusses this; does anyone have the link?)

Article or not, if it were true, then Coke would be the first link you
saw if you searched google for "sparkling cola beverage"

A simple search for "sparkling cola beverage" in google does not have
a link to any of the leading brands of cola beverages in the first 7
pages. Why?

Maybe because it's an odd search phrase to find cola?

People go to the Coke site because they already know the url, they
don't have to search for it.

Uh, ok. But if they *did* search for it, wouldn't they search for "coke?"

Ah yes searching for the name of the company. Even my own site is in
the top 4 if you search for Whitecrest entertainment. And I don't
follow any standards! Actually I do and I validate, but that is not the
point. Search for any company name and you get the company in the first
page. That is not searching.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

In article <Pine.LNX.4.53.0404232058520.8984 (AT) ppepc56 (DOT) ph.gla.ac.uk>,
flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk says...

Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the site.
So, now you're saying that they go there because they've seen
advertisements for it?
Previously you said, and I quote:
But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation, because THAT is what drives people to their site,
Forgive me if I'm slow on the uptake...

Yes you are slow, You know exactly what I'm saying but would rather
troll.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

In article <ZRhic.242357$oR5.38644@pd7tw3no>,
temp (AT) fungoid (DOT) dot.dyndns.dot.org says...

Or only use the pieces I want to make it work the way I want it to,
which is what 99% of the entire web does right now.
Which is most certainly not a good thing.

Why?

If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.

Todays "standards" are yesterdays innovations, and they were almost
always browser specific. So if everyone were forced to follow the
standards, how would we see the innovations? Let the standards people
decide what an innovation is? Thats exactly what Microsoft haters say
is one of the biggest problems with Microsoft.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com