but in general, i totally agree with you that standards, in their nitty gritty detail, like the HTML5 spec, are a popularity contest.
I think that we are working with CSS2.1 but it's never been approved by the standards bodies. We are already moving into use of CSS3. but that doesn't bother me because standards are, as they say, socially constructed. they are no different than the railroad gauge standard that had to emerge. it just makes things a whole lot easier. you can see what happens when it's not especially standardized with javascript. fuck me: it's the wild wild west out there and it can be a nightmare trying to figure out what the hell people are doing with their code.
in my "spare" time, I work on the microformats group. ha. if you guys think LBO is vicious, try getting a new microformat proposed and approved. LOL. vicious!
At 08:04 PM 5/26/2010, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>shag writes:
>
>>In my profession, no one gives a rats ass if our code
>>is according to web standards.
>
>I think a big part of that is because these so-called "standards" aren't
>as clearly superior to other ways of doing things as they are popularity
>contests. If there was the equivalent of Strunk & White for code, it
>would be different; but no such thing exists. Most of these "standards"
>are just whatever someone happened to write up in book form.
>
>Further, none of the vendors involved think that standards are of much
>importance either: witness the phenomenon called "Does this work in your
>browser?" ...
>
>That's not a standard worth caring about.
>
>/jordan
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)