[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare writes:
> Of course, this extremely slow adoption rate of XHTML 1.0/1.1 won't
> stop the W3C from churning out even more standards. *cough* XHTML 2.0
> *cough*
>
> Sometimes it seems as if the W3C goes out of its way to be made
> irrelevant.
Warning: Simon about to defend W3C
Sometimes it seems as if Microsoft only cares about its internal
customers for IE (Office, Windows, .NET), occasionally cares about its
competition, and generally cares not a whit for the W3C or Web deveopers
in general unless something happens to suit Microsoft's purposes anyway.
The innovation in Internet Explorer has pretty completely DIED since IE
became the dominant browser. Standards-compliance seems frozen in about
the year 1999 (did this a real Y2K bug bite?), and I haven't heard any
public signs of Microsoft having much interest in the Web except insofar
as it can tie users ever tighter to its other systems.
I don't think the W3C ever expected mass adoption of XHTML 1.0 or 1.1 -
at least that's the message I've heard from them consistently. XHTML
1.x was basically a cleanup, something that didn't actually demand very
much of vendors. Microsoft apparently can't be bothered to implement
even support for the XHTML namespace (or did that finally appear in IE
6?), so I guess it's good that expectations werre low.
XHTML 2.0 may mean that the W3C is finally shaking off its slumber and
moving forward despite the inertia of some of its key members. I
certainly hope so.
I wish I could say that Microsoft found the Web to be relevant, but on
the whole I really can't. I think they're still longing for Blackbird
in Redmond, with no pesky W3C to stick around after Microsoft is done
using it.
That's merely my opinion, of course.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
