Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, kchayka wrote:
[color=blue]
> Whitecrest wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > But all my pages work as designed.[/color]
>
> Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
> RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
> Their response to many was "It functions as designed".[/color]

Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <c6gqe7$bidgo$1 @ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
> net.us says...[color=green]
> > Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
> > the design was any good, of course.[/color]
>
> Nope,[/color]

You got that part right, at least
[color=blue]
> but bottom line is[/color]

It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".
[color=blue]
> that it does in fact function as designed.[/color]

See above.

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0404251811090.2 0469@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>,
flavell@ph.gla. ac.uk says...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > But all my pages work as designed.[/color]
> > Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
> > RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
> > Their response to many was "It functions as designed".[/color]
> Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).[/color]

Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...
--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0404251820010.2 0469@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>,
flavell@ph.gla. ac.uk says...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
> > > the design was any good, of course.[/color]
> > Nope,[/color]
> You got that part right, at least[color=green]
> > but bottom line is[/color]
> It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".[/color]

Sure it is.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > that it does in fact function as designed.[/color]
> See above.[/color]

Well since you are wrong in the assumption that a designer does being
able to declare the bottom line, your "see above" is meaning less.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Brian]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

kchayka wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> spaghetti@aspyr e.net says...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they
>>> are three-fourths of the solution.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth
> issues.[/color]

I thought there was a point, that it would make some difference if taken
literally. Remove invalid markup such as <font> and replace it with the
only alternative left for changing e.g. text color, and you will reduce
page weight in not a few pages on the www.

However, on looking at the recommendations , I did not find <font> in
html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not
in 3.2. Thus <font> is valid for that one dtd.
[color=blue]
> You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or
> lots of graphics that weigh a page down.[/color]

No argument here.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> However, on looking at the recommendations , I did not find <font> in
> html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
> element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not
> in 3.2. Thus <font> is valid for that one dtd.[/color]

The <font> element *is* in HTML 3.2. Look again.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is there a standard for the definition of "standard"?[/color]

ISO/IEC Guide 2 defines a "standard":
<http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/gen_inf.html#Wh atisstd>

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

[James Pickering]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

Andreas Prilop wrote:

ISO/IEC Guide 2 defines a "standard":

Note that the W3C is not listed as an International standardizing
body/organization ..........

http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/index.html

James Pickering

http://www.jp29.org/

[James Pickering]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

International Standards relating to computer technologies are mostly formulated
and published jointly by the ISO (International Organization for Standards) and
the IEC (International Electrotechnica l Commission):

http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/gen_inf.html#international

Thus ISO-HTML is actually an ISO/IEC standard.

James Pickering

http://www.jp29.org/

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?


"James Pickering" <jamesicus@aol. com> wrote in message
news:2004042613 4147.24684.0000 0389@mb-m29.aol.com...[color=blue]
> International Standards relating to computer technologies are mostly[/color]
formulated[color=blue]
> and published jointly by the ISO (International Organization for[/color]
Standards) and[color=blue]
> the IEC (International Electrotechnica l Commission):
>
> http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/gen_inf.html#international
>
> Thus ISO-HTML is actually an ISO/IEC standard.[/color]

Oh. Then why aren't we all validating to

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "ISO/IEC 15445:2000//DTD HyperText Markup
Language//EN">

?

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:18:41 +0100, Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis .co.uk>
declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,alt.html:
[color=blue]
> most of the early
> sites built by large corporations were farmed out to their regular graphic
> design contractors or departments and hence weren't built by people with
> any significant web design experience[/color]

Surely most of the early sites were built before _anyone_ had any
significant web design experience? ;-)

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:14:51 -0400, Whitecrest
<whitecrest@whi tecrestziopzap. com> declared in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,alt.html:[color=blue]
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0404251811090.2 0469@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>,
> flavell@ph.gla. ac.uk says...[color=green]
>> Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).[/color]
>
> Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...[/color]

Why not? Are you saying it is impossible to come up with a design that
is inherently broken?

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:14:03 -0400, Whitecrest
<whitecrest@whi tecrestziopzap. com> declared in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,alt.html:[color=blue]
> In article <ZRhic.242357$o R5.38644@pd7tw3 no>,
> temp@fungoid.do t.dyndns.dot.or g says...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>> Which is most certainly not a good thing.[/color]
> Why?[/color]

Imagine if on the roads everyone decided on their own "standard" of
driving rules. Each person decided which side of the road to drive on
(if any), what speed they would go, whether to use headlights,
indicators, seatbelts, etc.

Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Whitecrest]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <1c8mvwyqmyg5j. n010g6t55hl.dlg @40tude.net>,
webmaster@clark ecomputers.com. au says...[color=blue]
> Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
> same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
> everyone.[/color]

I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.) I think it
takes away from these people to accommodate others.

If the site is an ecommerce site where the owner NEEDS to make money
from the site, then by all means, follow standards, stay away from css
that is not rendered the same in all browsers, don't use flash or
javascript for anything that is needed.

All other cases must be evaluated individually based on what the owner
wants to present, and how he/she wants to present it.

The web is too big and has way too many uses for a set of standards to
accommodate all of its uses.

A perfect example is Webex, or Webentations. Are they web pages? Yep,
do they (could they) validate, or even be accessible (beyond alt tags)
to everyone? Nope.

Are they a valid use of the web? Sure are, and probably one of the
fastest growing sectors of web applications right now.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment

https://www.whitecrestent.com

[Toby A Inkster]

Re: Does anyone pay attention to standards?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:05 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <1c8mvwyqmyg5j. n010g6t55hl.dlg @40tude.net>,
> webmaster@clark ecomputers.com. au says...[color=green]
>> Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
>> same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
>> everyone.[/color]
>
> I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
> that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.)[/color]

I don't see how sticking to standards[1] impacts on presentation. e.g.
Flash can be used on standards-compliant pages.

Of course, this depends on which standards you follow. e.g. HTML 4.01
would allow you to embed Flash. HTML 2.0 would not.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132