Along with the development of web standards

Web|web Standard

• Original Author: Andrei Herasimchuk
• Original source:designbyfire.com
• Original publication date: June 11, 2004

This is a shocking article. The author's analysis is profound and his writing is sharp. The author's fear that Microsoft will control the world may be extreme, but it has to arouse our vigilance and thinking. After the publication of the article caused a fierce controversy and even abusive, interested suggestions to the original look. From this we can understand the real situation that the Web standard is popularized abroad, and then think what should we do?

Translation

Important NOTE: The following article is my personal opinion, not to express myself or write for my boss.

While I now think web standards are worth paying attention to, I don't care about web standards, and I'm not aware of the problems I'm going to discuss, before I get to the topic of web standards. And these are the real reasons why everyone should be concerned about web standards and their role in high tech products and services.

I. Gathering of the Consortium

June 1, 2004 and 2nd, I attended a meeting of the consortium at the Adobe Group headquarters in downtown San Jose (USA). (Sitting next to me was Donna, a friend of the new Adobe Group, who was surprised at how many of the women who attended the world-gathering met.) Good question, she just looks at the house as a lady. If you have time to spend a few minutes reading the assembly instructions, you will find Tantek Celik and Hakon Lie here, as well as from Sun, Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Nokia, Sony, Representatives of Openwave large companies, as well as a number of independent consultants and other companies to participate.

Along with a lot of interesting demos, it's time to discuss more about the status of web standards and how to develop them during the meeting. The focus of the discussion is more on how to use web standards on the next generation of Web applications. I was very eager to stand up and state my two points, but I restrained myself. During the rest of the meeting, I and Dean Jackson and Jon Ferraiolo my opinion, and they were very sympathetic and suggested that I should go and grab the microphone for me, and I stopped them. Maybe I'm afraid people know me from my RTFM rant , God knows? This time, I think all I should do is sit and listen.

Two. Some background information

Before we begin the text, allow me to recall first.

Last month, I wrote to a group asking whether it was worth trying to set up a "Web Standard promotion Day". This day as many blog sites are closed at the same time to enhance the effect, while placing the same page on the homepage to explain the real goal of web standards. and explain things: Microsoft is unwilling to modify its IE to establish a unified benchmark platform, so developers can build lightweight code to work in IE, Safari, Mozilla, Firefox and opera and other browsers. ---do so at least cause people to focus on the content of the home page.

This proposal is still uncertain and may not happen and we need to see how many people are interested in doing so. Put aside the matter. There have been a lot of good articles and discussions about the benefits of web standards in fact. If you haven't seen it, here are some quick Links lists:

• The Business benefits of WEB standards This site has been translated
• About WEB Standards
• WEB Standards ROI
• WEB standards for Business
• An interview with Mike Davidson of ESPN
• Eric Meyer interview on WEB standards
• The Way Forward with WEB standards
• Developing with WEB standards
• Embracing Best Practice

Of course, Zeldman's "Designing with Web Standards" is the best book on the subject, and it's easy to explain the WEB standard application and technical essentials.

All articles discuss the benefits of Web standards: simplifying code, speeding development, compressing file sizes, increasing download speed, better ease of use, getting more users, easier maintenance, multi-platform compatibility. These benefits are only at the technical level, and there are some ROI discussions.

The above are all about the right, very important view of web standards, and I assume you've heard and understood that before.

Three. The summary

For the sake of this article, I want you to forget about all the technical benefits mentioned in the above article, and forget that your content can be compatible and light together in different browsers, operating systems or computers, and mobile devices; Forget the tech giant 100% support standard (not 90% support), How much time and money can be saved by the developer using the standard. Those are the most perfect goals that can be achieved by standards, but they are not the real reason why web standards are really important to the world.

Generally speaking, standardization means applying pressure to the enterprise. They want to change their behaviour, not just to benefit shareholders, but to benefit everyone.

Ultimately, the most important purpose of the standard is rarely achieved through code, ROI or day to day arguments. When you start to think hard, you find companies that innovate and compete in business, such as Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, and IBM, which in essence need to survive in a free market. If these companies think they are not important to follow the standards, especially if the standard is a development of an unofficial organization within their sphere of influence, will they follow? Expecting these companies to change their nature is just as unrealistic as it is to expect predators to stop hunting when they are hungry.

In fact, you can easily find examples of companies that refuse to adopt standards and are very successful, especially when you're looking at the company's slow pace of innovation (many times alluding to the idea from Microsoft). No one who lives and works in a free economy would think so.

The real reason why standards are important to all of us is that it is expected to create a universally acceptable benchmark of behaviour that balances the interests of all parties (level of behavior), whether you like it or not. Especially those who are working, but are far away from the standard, intelligent engineers. (although these are named "standard" specifications have been established for 10 years).

Four. Microsoft and standard

You might ask what Microsoft was thinking in the late 90 and early 2000. Why is it ostensibly a guarantee to start walking on the standard road, and in fact it probably only follows 80% to 90%? The question is simple. The adoption of Web standards by Microsoft in IE4 to IE6 browsers is nothing more than a market tool. At that time, IE implemented the standard means more than rivals Netscape's Navigator browser. On the face of it, we feel that Microsoft is doing the right thing, in fact, that Microsoft is simply driven by the nature of commercial interests (corporate DNA): Web standards mean innovation.

Once Microsoft gets what it wants, it's reckless, continues to escalate, and even goes further. For example, now Microsoft is now starting to develop new proprietary technology XAML on the new operating system Longhorn. As some have pointed out , Microsoft is starting to split the market again, as it did in 1995. It's no surprise that Microsoft's behavior stems from the nature of its business interests, and its past and present actions are logical. More importantly, it will not change unless there is strong pressure from outside.

Five. A lesson from Asimov

This may be an inappropriate metaphor, but I insist on quoting it. This analogy comes from Isaac Asimov (Asimov) 's sci-fi works "Base Three steps" (Foundation Trilogy). In the first book, there is an independent planet in the universe called a base, the only source of technology for the entire Galactic Empire. Everything was fine at first, until one day the Galactic Empire tried to control the entire base. So when the Galactic Empire sent ships to attack the small planets, all the machines, appliances and computer systems of the Galactic Empire failed at the same time. The base relied on the only technology to win, and forced the Galactic Empire to allow its independence.

In the book, the Galactic Empire is evil and corrupt, and on course it moves the universe again into the dark ages. We have to worry about similar situations happening in the real world. We have to think clearly that a company like Microsoft is likely to have a similar "base" capability.

In modern networks, business and industry have relied too much on Microsoft's technology---at least for the duration of our common operating systems, the main content-Transfer devices like HTML performance engines (not limited to IE browsers, but also windows that can represent Web content). Everyone should take a look at Google's Times hotspot page statistics.

There is a very timely view: the action of a few people will have a profound impact on the majority. In such an environment, the majority of the people in order to protect themselves must establish a mutually restrictive balance mechanism to prevent the minority of errors, greed and the right to buy and sell. Without this balance mechanism, the minority would abuse their rights, ignore the needs of the majority and sacrifice the interests of the majority, and most people need not be surprised.

We have our own constraining balance mechanism, which is the Web Standard specification that the world's website provides to the universe. However, if this specification is not 100% compliant, 90% compliance is not enough, 9 9% compliance is not enough. (as Hakon commented at the conference, the specs are in place, and we are now waiting for Microsoft to fully implement it.) )

Respected Microsoft has already sounded a wake-up call to the business community: the security of Microsoft Office is pitiful and terrifying. There are security vulnerabilities that allow a 16 or 17-year-old hacker to hack the entire system and paralyze the system with extremely simple virus code. It is hoped that the business community will put more pressure on Microsoft to follow the standards set by the consortium.

If our business and political leaders do not exert pressure on Microsoft, then don't be surprised by the possible future results. More importantly, if we (including all developers, programmers, designers, and content creators around the world) do not do what we should to "educate" those business and political leaders, we will be blamed for the final results.

Six. Practical steps

Finally, if web standards are truly valued, as a means of building an equal competitive environment (level playing field) and balancing the interests of all parties (lowest common denominator), this is close to what I want to say loudly at the gathering. At the end of the second day of the rally, there were suggestions that the consortium needed to move boldly forward. Dean (The research Fellow of the consortium) looks a little hesitant. You'd better take a look at thisnote yourself.

In my opinion, before worrying about the next generation of Internet development, the applications should do the following, focusing on Web application software:

• 1. Consolidation and collation of existing norms

  When I look at XHTML or CSS specifications, the most important thing is that I want to see current standards, not past standards, or future standards being developed. Collation standards make it easy to implement and follow, but also need to provide users with a separate, readily updated documentation for easy access to critical information (critical information).

• 2. Determine which set of specifications should be followed by the current phase of web development

  Here is a discussion of the relevant part of the consortium, I have voted to propose a two-list approach: The first specification list describes the specifications that the world is going to follow today or next year, and the list contains only those specifications that have been approved by the current consortium, including XHTML, CSS, and DOM; the second specification list will contain XHTML, CSS, SMIL, SVG, XForms, ECMAScript, and DOM. Once our content publishing system is able to handle 100% of the specifications in the second list, we can discuss what the next level will be. By then, I believe that many of the specifications for Web application software will be included in the discussion.

• 3. Set up two sets of documents

  We need a set of specifications specifically for developers and creators of user agents (similar to Microsoft), and a set of specifications specifically for designers and web developers. Now the specification is mixed together, it is not convenient for all kinds of users to consult the corresponding knowledge when applying the standard.

• 4. Refocus the current home page of the Consortium

  There is only a small amount of information on the home page of the consortium that explains why it is important to use and focus on web standards. The page is filled with specifications and links, a typical "bureaucracy" design that violates the most important design principle: if all the information on the page is important, then all the information is unimportant. It's time to change, the main focus of the Web page should be how to make it easier for people to navigate the rules, rather than how the bureaucracy is being transported.

Seven. What can you do in this situation?

Give Web standards more opportunity to limit Microsoft's power. It doesn't seem to be something that ordinary people can do, maybe right or wrong. They say democracy is every vote, and if the power of a ballot is trivial, then I think it's enough to assemble every single vote that supports the Web standard, perhaps "Web Standard day" is needed. If there are enough voices to speak loudly about the importance of web standards and protest against the current situation, then there may be enough business and political leaders to focus on the pressures that Microsoft needs.

I've already done that.

I was also pleased to see that John Allsopp's campaign on his web Essentials site had aroused enough interest. This activity in the United States and Europe promises to push the Web standards forward greatly.

The truth? One of my propositions is that Microsoft should not do anything to IE unless they are pressured to change their ways. To be honest, if all developers use the same platform, the same set of APIs, the same set of standards, the world will be much simpler.

That's true, in fact, many companies are already doing this (giving Web standards more opportunity to limit Microsoft's power), just worrying about windows and IE, as we all know. I have insisted on doing this myself in the last few companies, just for moral and responsibility.

Who says the only specification should not be made by Microsoft? This can make things a lot easier (like learning HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code) so that we can just work on a browser, an operating system, or a platform. Who says it is wrong to allow Microsoft to make such a specification? Who says Microsoft is wrong to put XAML or other extensions into. NET CSS and HTML? What's wrong with us writing all Web content and code according to Microsoft specifications? Why can't we rely on a company for all our technology?

Perhaps Bill Gates is really the Hari Seldon of Asimov's Cosmic Base (Harishaton: Trying to shorten the ensuing dark ages by building a hidden base in the galactic corner). Maybe it's all a plan to help the world through the dark Ages that followed, but we don't know?

Don't care about web standards?

Be careful, you may get what you don't want.

(Keywords: web standards to promote the consortium)