[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Gerald Bauer wrote:
> Also allow me to highlight that pretty much all Web 2.0 innovations
>side step the W3C bureaucracy and its self-styled visionaries and
>leaders e.g.
>
> o XmlHttpRequest - A innovation introduced by - suprise, suprise - Microsoft
> o User JavaScripts - A innovation introduced by Firefox Hackers
> o Web Graphics Using Canvas Tag and JavaScript - A innovation introduced by Apple
Well, it seems few people realize that Microsoft's Internet Explorer
is an extremely rich platform; XMLHTTPRequest had to be discoved long
after it was available, few people are aware that IE ships with a
vector graphics implementation or that it supports compound document
formats such as HTML+SMIL.
The same goes for "User JavaScripts", IE4 allowed to use scripts
inside style sheets and supported user style sheets which some people
used to create "User JavaScripts". I've used it for example to add
class attributes to specific documents so I can filter out stuff or
change annoying styles more easily.
It also provided "Web Graphics Using Canvas Tag and JavaScript" though
not depending on proprietary features but standard HTML-extensibility
means like the <object> element. Unlike the <canvas> element it is
also not limited to simple 2D graphics, standard 3D models can easily
be used, animated, etc. http://www.mgifos.demon.co.uk/ has examples.
The competing vendors aren't really innovating here, they are trying
to catch up. So this "Web 2.0" seems to be the web of 1997. And I'm
not sure how the W3C is relevant here,
"In discussions, it was agreed that further extending HTML 4.0 would
be difficult, as would converting 4.0 to be an XML application. The
proposed way to break free of these restrictions is to make a fresh
start with the next generation of HTML based upon a suite of XML
tag-sets." -- http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/future/
Seven years later we are still waiting for this next generation of
HTML, and, much worse, XHTML 2.0 is not going to address the problems
it was supposed to address, "at this time the Working Group has no
ready solution" to address extensibility in XHTML 2.0,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2005AprJun/0067
XHTML 2.0 isn't really backed by consensus in the community either,
Ian Hickson notes "I disagree with many of XHTML2's design decisions"
I am not sure though where he got those design decisions from, it
seems "XHTML2" and "design" are basically as unrelated as "W3C HTML
Working Group" and "W3C Process".
"What on earth is going on inside "the club"? Can't someone
put a "bomb" in there that blows them all out into reality?"
-- Jan Roland Eriksson on www-html.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
|
