Congrats on the 100th comment. =]

think it's more because of what W3C standards are trying to achieve than simply 'they are the W3C standards'.

Oh, I get the idealism there. I'm talking specifically about the "argument" that goes "If IE followed the standard, we wouldn't be having this conversation." That's a pointless argument to make, as it's a vacuous truth. If you all used IE, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You have to state why IE should be following W3C, separately from the statement that if they did, the conversation would be over.

As for what they're trying to achieve... yay, them? The world's full of misguided efforts to try to do something huge and meaningful. Standards happen in spite of committee action, not because of it.

You're supporting a browser, Firefox fans are supporting a standard which enables them to use ANY browser that complies with the agreed upon standard

I didn't agree to it. The computer using world didn't agree to it. I don't think this discussion's going to get very far if we can't keep it in the real world.

In a perfect world Firefox will lead enough people away from IE that Microsoft will be forced to start complying with all the standards. Then all sorts cool browsers will start popping up and people will choose their browser based on what they like in a browser instead of what percentage of the internet it works with.

In that perfect world, wouldn't every browser be necessarily identical in capabilities, with only cosmetic and peripheral differences?

Progress arises out of conflict and strife. Cooperation doesn't give us neat stuff as fast as competition does... if the "browser wars" ended tomorrow, then in a year you'd have no idea if your browser was good, bad, or indifferent compared to the rest because there'd be no "the rest" to compare it to.

And incidentally, the internet works just fine from where I'm sitting.

In the world we live in, which is far from perfect but kicks more ass than it's given credit for, Microsoft will improve their browser as they're given more incentive to do so... i.e., serious competiton. The noticeable improvements between IE 6 and 7 count as an example of this.

Yes, this means IE will likely be inconsistent between its releases. It will probably veer closer to "compliance", and hopefully, Mozilla and the rest of the world will pull their heads out of their, uh, idealism and give ground to reality, and we'll end up with something like a universal standard, that looks sort of like what W3C said.

And if those standards continue to change and evolve according to the latest browser release made to address the needs and demands of the public, they will serve the world faaaaaaaaar better than anything hashed out in committee.

Yeah, sucks for developers... compared to the alternative of having set-in-stone standards, anyway... but it's not bad for consumers.

A developer who chooses to develop for public consumption will deal with this fact.

A developer who doesn't, won't have to.


The more you talk, the more this whole thing reminds me of Esperanto. An international standard for communication... how can it not be the wave of the future?

Hedgemistress wrote:

I didn't agree to it. The computer using world didn't agree to it.

So what? If you expected the W3C to call you to get your approval then you're the one who isn't arguing this in reality. You're not that important. =P
Microsoft did agree to it. Key members of the web development community agreed to it. The browser developers agreed to it. Why? Because the internet can not function properly without all pages operating under the same standard rules.
I know that you're not debating that we need a standard, you're just saying that everyone uses IE so thus IE sets the standard. The problem is IE doesn't set the standard. Microsoft aren't stepping up and saying 'ok, screw the W3C, these are our standards, live with it'. If they were I would probably be swinging towards your side.

In that perfect world, wouldn't every browser be necessarily identical in capabilities, with only cosmetic and peripheral differences?

Pretty much. You don't like Firefox, fair enough, but lets say you find a browser you do like more than IE. Wouldn't you be pissed that you couldn't use it because it had no way of being compatible with the rest of the internet?

Progress arises out of conflict and strife.

When it comes to conflict and strife I'd say that progress comes from resolving them, and I've got a hell of a lot better chance resolving my problems with the W3C than I do with Microsoft.

It will probably veer closer to "compliance"

As long as Microsoft can use their unique standard as a tool to keep people using IE then they wont. It is without a doubt their biggest IE marketing tool.
We're not talking about an epic task. It wouldn't consume massive amounts of resources. If they were interested in doing it they would have done it already.

but it's not bad for consumers.

It is bad for consumers. You're stuck using a single browser. I don't care if IE works or not, when it comes to something as large as this I just don't to be limited to the choice.

In the world we live in, which is far from perfect but kicks more ass than it's given credit for

Heh, apart from a few friends no one I talk to gets that. Yes, there's a lot of crappy things happening, but that doesn't change the fact pretty much any type of food I could ever want is no more than an hour away. Several times a week I hop on a train and travel an insane distance in 15 minutes. I can reach pretty much anywhere on the planet within weeks. I've never even met you yet I can communicate with you as easily as I could the person in the next room. All of which are the most minor elements of our day to day life. When else in human history could someone do that? =P