Hi I read through that post and the available comments and I'd say it's a bit pedantic of the author to go on about a subset of an application and link that to the end of XHTML and worse. Especially one that seems to be third party and incorporated into WP. The author also confuses the functions of getting your data from a source (the application) and sending it to a browser/device (the output method). The two are distinct (although sometimes the lines blur).
Writing web applications is a process of gradual improvement rather than spot on standards the first time (although that may happen from time to time). Remember also that standards are a stepping stone to building web applications - not the be-all and end-all. Nobody kills kittens when a validation error occurs, nobody should, least of all your favourite deity. Implementing a feature that will bring in greater market share, more users and therefore more revenue has to be considered along with any improvement process involving incorporation of standards. If you add a feature that brings in a few thousand users while not initially supporting the standards then you have more revenue to improve that feature to satisfy the outliers that demand full compliance. It would, of course, be even better to implement a feature that incorporates the accepted standard from the start - but the world doesn't always work that way. Take the Gallery option talked about in this link - if the author(s) of it cannot provide a standards compliant option within the launch timeframe of any app that includes it - and the app is not relying on it for core functions then the app is going to be launched, with a X.x point release probably bringing the gallery up to speed. With open source applications especially there is a process for reporting and fixing bugs that often proves cumbersome to some - and chiding the app's developers does nothing to assist in fixing the issues (in fact it may produce the opposite effect). Finally, focusing back on WP, it does what it does well - providing free publishing to a huge audience in a semi-standards compliant way. If you step back, it can be seen as a glorified way of saving content with a "wp unified" way of rendering that data. And I guess that's my point - it can save your content but you can use any codebase (not just the WP software) to access the database and visualise your data in any way you see fit (even XHTML1 strict). And that's really true for any application that uses any type of data storage medium. Cheers James On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:44:06 am Andrew Boyd wrote: > Stuart, > > I would have to add "..and watch those standards disregarded by popular > Open Source and commercial applications". > > For an interesting tale of standards and Standards slipping, please see > http://realtech.burningbird.net/semweb/wordpress-25-releases/ - the comment > discussion taking place is quite informative. > > Cheers, Andrew > > Andrew Boyd > Consultant > SMS Management & Technology > > M 0413 048 542 > T +61 2 6279 7100 > F +61 2 6279 7101 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > About SMS: Ground Floor, 8 Brindabella Circuit, CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609 > www.smsmt.com SMS Management & Technology (SMS) [ASX:SMX] is Australia's > largest, publicly listed Management Services company. We solve complex > problems and transform business through Consulting, People and Technology > ________________________________________ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
