Carlfish wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:38:21 +0200, Bernd Khalil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> somehow managed to type:
>
> >Uses documents.layers (look at the page source). That's not part of the
> >official DOM-Specs by the W3C. Nobody should use it.
> >Vice versa: NS4 and IE do it *wrong*.
>
> Saying someone is "wrong" for using a different standard isn't really
> justified.
>
> W3C DOM was written by a standards body. The standard is several years
> old, and has been largely ignored by everyone but the Mozilla project,
> whose browser is still in beta.
>
> IE DOM is a de facto standard that has been in full release-quality
> software for a long time, and that software has a 90% of the users out
> there.
>
> I personally think the W3C should be taken to task for not
> amending a standard that breaks so markedly from what is obviously
> standard practice amongst web designers.
>
> [rant on]
>
> I mean, what's with the W3C? CSS2 was released in 1998 as a standard, and
> I can count on the toes of one hand how many compliant browsers have been
> released, three years later. So what are the W3C doing about it? Yes,
> they're off working on CSS3. Their own HTML showcase, Amaya, doesn't
> even support CSS1 properly.
>
> Wahey!
>
> The closest we have to an implementation of this three year old standard
> is Mozilla. So it's not really "W3C CSS2", it's Mozilla CSS2, because
> nobody else has bothered with more than a third of it. It may be W3C DOM,
> but it's an incompatible subset of what people are really _using_ out
> there.
>
> IMHO, anyone who produces a standard should also be responsible for
> providing a fully compliant reference implementation, either on their own,
> or by partnering with someone who can. But that's just me in my little
> utopia.
>
> [rant off]
>
> Charles Miller
You have a good understanding of the basics, but not how they tie in.
The Word Wide Web Consorteum (W3C) consists of interested parties for
the purpose of creating standards reached by consensus of all parties
involved. The Recommendations released by W3C are not simply created
by W3C in a secretive or brought-down-from-the-mountain-tablet way.
Many interested parties which include Microsoft, Netscape, etc. are
involved in the discussion processes from Draft versions to the final
Draft, which the Director of the W3C endorses and releases as a W3C
Recommendation. Every paragraph/phrase/clause has been meticulousely
screened by all the parties until a "consensus" on the final Draft
is reached and only then is it endorsed as a Recommendation.
Microsoft certainly has a big, big voice among the interested parties
and Microsoft certainly agreed to any released Recommendation. It is
a sad fact that Microsoft chooses to implement "selectively" and in a
"self-serving interprative way". IE 5.5 could have been 100% compliant
but it was not. IE 6 final should be 100% compliant but it will not be
and is not. NS 6/Moz and Moz derivatives are going the 100% compliant
route and are there, notwithstanding glitches/bugs. Moz is not alone
is this quest; Opera is also on the same track.
Although IE 5.5 had embraced more compliance, and IE 6 has embraced
even more, Microsoft has chosen to not go the 100% route. Instead, MS
persists on imposing their own brand on the web with Frontpage Editor
and Internet Explorer.
The overwhelming dominance of IE, Frontpage and their like has
practically handed the web over to MS. Your suggestion that W3C should
amend the Recommendations to the non-standard "MS Standard" would hand
over the web to MS completely. So what would be the point of having
standards anyway? W3C might as well be disolved and let MS take over
completely. Do you really wish to have this happen?
Regarding Amaya; I have it and what I have checked, admittedly not
thoroughly, seems to be 100% CSS1 compliant.
Regarding the DOM, what we have is:
DOM0 NS
DOM0 IE
DOM1 W3C
DOM2 HTML
DOM2 XML
Visit this site for a dose of standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Gus
