> > For HTML this may have been the case, but market forces > > did force the companies to adopt the core standards > > fairly quickly. That's not stopping them from adding > > features (and the W3C isn't demanding that they don't) > > but it does level the playing field. > > So, again, what did the W3C contribute to this process? > Considering that the "core standards" were often driven by > what vendors introduced in their products? When did the TABLE > tag get introduced into the HTML standard - HTML 4?
The W3C did create the core standards. When you truly consider the vendor created markup it really is a small subset (and much of it isn't in use any longer) - experimentation really. The core standards, as defined by the W3C, covered almost all the bases - vendor markup constituted wiz-bang stuff that's not even in use any longer for the most part. We don't see "Blink", "Marquee", etc anymore. Features that stood the test of peer review got added to the spec (such as iFrame) those that didn't were dropped. Even "popular" vendor additions (such as Netscape Layers) have receeded and been replaced by W3C standards as the ramifications of them were hashed out. The process IS long, but it is effective. This is also why the W3C, unlike many other standards bodies, make interim specs available constantly. > > I'm just put off by the extreme nature of your comments. > > There's no need to be put off; it's meant purely as an observation. > > > Also, and I'm worried that people simply don't know what > > the W3C IS anymore, please remember that the vendors you're > > talking about are not at odds with the W3C, they ARE the W3C. > > It's a mostly vendor-based group with ideas and direction > > coming from the vendor community. > > To call the vendors a "community" certainly weakens the value > of the word. They're direct competitors, and each values > interoperability only to the extent that it's in its own interest. Exactly - and that's one of the more useful aspects of the W3C - it allows all these vendors to come together and decide what's "right" for their collective interests. It is a community - or perhaps, considering the arguing, "family" might be a better word. ;^) > > Is there no room for moderation? Can you honestly say XML > > achieved the widespread adoption it enjoys solely due to > > vendor implementations? How about HTTP? > > Yes, I can say both of those things. I can also say that > vendors may have used those standards because of the pressure > applied by their customers, who want interoperability. My > statement was simply meant to point out that the W3C doesn't > make anything, in any meaningful sense. I don't dislike the > W3C, and I prefer their standards to the defacto "standards" > of individual vendors, but it's unrealistic to say they're in > control of what happens, because they're not. How can you say that XML has achieved it's popularity solely on vendor actions? The spec and idea came first; vendor support followed. It doesn't really matter HOW the vendors came to use the specs (out of the goodness of their hearts or customer pressure or mafia strong-arming), what matters is that the specification was created and followed. Without the former you could never have the latter. > > Lastly would it be so bad if, as you say, that the W3C > > "only" helped vendors do what they want to do? Assuming > > this means "in the least disruptive way" isn't that a good, > > needed and noble purpose? How would the landscape look > > today if there were no HTML or HTTP standards? > > I think you're reading too much intent into my previous post. > I'm simply saying that standards bodies don't drive > development, not that they're bad or useless or that we > shouldn't have them. However, as a case in point, compare SVG > to Flash, and ask yourself which is more likely to succeed, and why. I think that the circumstances are all different. Standards bodies don't, as a rule ever drive development they, well, standardize it. However in the W3Cs history there has been many cases where they pushhing development forward. There was no alternative vendor solutions to style-sheets for ricj formatting in HTML for example, or to XML for that matter. In the case of HTML is was a clear vendor push driving the tech forward (a vendor push created by the popular acceptance of the web). I think that the W3C specs for XHTML, XML and other foundational technologies will push forward the semantic web as well. But once that takes off then I expect the pendulum to swing the other way towards a more vendor driven model. In the case of Flash vrs SVG it's not a fair comparison. Flash is an application platform with full scripting and animation capabilities. SVG is simple a file format for vector graphics like an open CMX or WPG. I think that it's VERY likely that Flash will accept SVG graphics as input soon (just as it now accepts PNG, another W3C standard, as input) but the two technologies aren't in competition. SMIL might be a better choice for the metaphor - and in this case Flash will most likely win hands down (or adopt SMIL) but SMIL is also in use (quite a bit by MS for example) so it's not a dead tech by any means. My point is simply that the W3C can't be marginalized today (although it may be in the future) as it's contributions are still obvious and strong. But, when discussing specific tech it may very well be either instrumental or a non-entity. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
