|
Word From The
WaSP
04.11.00
Here We Go Again
On 27 March, we hailed
Microsoft for shipping IE 5/Mac, the first browser to Do The Right Thing with HTML and
CSS. Naturally, this pleased our Microsoft friends, while convincing thousands that we
were whores of Redmond.
On 10 April, we flamed
Microsoft for previewing IE 5.5/Windows, a browser that strikes out on complete
support for any standard. Instead, using that "freedom to innovate"
that Microsoft spokesmen praise on the courtroom steps, IE 5.5 takes a bold leap toward
the future by implementing colored scrollbars. Also some other proprietary goodies that
work only in Windows. Oddly enough, we haven't heard any official comment from our former
buds, except for a halfassed load of flackery from their spin-off PR company,
Waggner-Edstrom.
It looks like our opinion only matters when it's wearing a happy-face.
Well, Microsoft, we'll be delighted to dig out those happy-faces and wish you a
thousand years of peace and prosperity; just remember that complete support for W3C
standards is Job 1. Quit before the job's done, and the flamethrower's the only answer.
Because that's our job. We speak for thousands of Web developers, and through
them, millions of Web users.
Microsoft claims, wearing a straight face, that delivering "most" of a given
standard does the job. Wrong! Putting up "most" of a fence does not protect your
privacy. Putting up "most" of a firewall doesn't keep the crackers out. We, the
people who build real Web sites for real customers, need complete implementations of basic
standards - technology we would have had years ago, if not for the browser wars and the
deformed thinking they engendered.
(What do we mean by "deformed thinking?" Believing that the Internet is a
space anyone can "own," instead of a worldwide collaborative medium that belongs
to everyone. That's what we mean. Believing that it's more important to "win at any
cost" than to win bigger by getting on board with the open spirit that gave birth to
the Internet and the Web. That's what we mean.)
We're particularly frosted over Microsoft's bypassing support for the Document Object
Model (DOM), which gives programmers access to the data found in HTML and XML documents. Don't
these guys remember that they helped build this thing? A paranoid would think that
they fear the power of the DOM in the hands of Web developers, so they're not letting us
have it. (Andy Grove says it's okay to be paranoid.) In addition, they seem to fear the
power of XML and CSS combined, the true separation of structure and display. What are you
afraid of, Microsoft? That you'll turn over control of the desktop to developers? What
else is it there for?
Microsoft thinks we blame them for war in Bosnia, starvation in Africa, and the
fragmented state of the Web. The last is not true! Netscape started this mess, by
moronically making up tags for every little thing you might want to do on a Web page,
never even bothering to check out the W3C recommendations. Microsoft came to the party
late, but it came talking about standards, and did a better job of supporting them than
Netscape.
For years, now, Microsoft has done a better job than Netscape at supporting standards.
Which is why we're so mad at Microsoft's stated intention to
build proprietary technologies and experimental implementations of half-baked working drafts before
finishing up standards which have been around for years - including CSS-1, which has been
frozen since the mesolithic era (1996 to be precise).
Microsoft seems to forget that we beat up on Netscape for its 4.0 browser. Our CSS experts refused to review
Netscape's laughable implementation of Style Sheets.
They forget that we organized a petition drive demanding that Netscape not release a
5.0 browser unless it was rebuilt using standards-oriented technology, rather than the
hideous code-tumor that still lurks under the covers of Netscape 4.anything. Netscape took
us literally: they not only began building a browser based on Gecko, they apparently
decided never to release a browser labeled "5.0."
Okay, to be fair, there still isn't anything like a commercially available Netscape
browser. And the "interesting" beta version Netscape showed the world last week
is unlikely to win many converts. But at least they're saying they're going to
try to do the right thing. And suddenly, Microsoft is not.
If we're giving Microsoft a hard time now, it's because we hope that, like Netscape,
they can be persuaded to change. After all, Netscape was once every bit as arrogant as
Microsoft is today. We're protesting in the hope that Redmond will see the light and
finish up at least CSS-1 and HTML 4.0 before unloading IE 5.5 on the world like a
truckload of dung. After all, with IE5 for the Mac, they've proved they can build a great
browser that complies with standards.
Microsoft claims they've come "really close" in the Windows version. No,
Microsoft, you haven't. Your HTML 4.0 support is incomplete, your CSS-1 implementation has
multiple compound fractures (more on that below), and your forward-looking partial
implementations of CSS-2 and CSS-3 are part of the problem, not part of the solution;
something like a partial heart transplant.
Microsoft claims that finishing HTML 4.0 and CSS-1 would be too difficult. Well gosh,
boys, we know those option upsides aren't what they used to be, and it does rain a lot up
there, but somehow you managed to do the job on the Mac. Don't Windows users deserve the
same level of support? And doesn't it bother you even a little that the Mac and Windows
versions are incompatible?
Microsoft claims that it has supported "a lot" of CSS-1, and demands to know
where it has failed. Okay. Let's take something as simple as absolute font-size keywords,
which Microsoft claims to support in their current IE5 browser for Windows.
In IE5/Mac (in Standard mode), absolute font-size keywords are done right, per CSS-1.
"Medium" means "medium size" and "small" means "one
size smaller than medium." Not exactly rocket science.
Over in Windows-land, "medium" means "large," and "small"
means "medium." Confusing? You bet. What does this mean in the real world? It
means your text is guaranteed to be wrong-sized on one platform or the other.
What do Web developers do when faced with this kind of maddening stupidity? They stick
with <FONT SIZE> tags, or use pixels in their Style Sheets. Could
Microsoft fix this defect in their Windows browser? Easily - if they weren't too busy
implementing colored scrollbars. Too much trouble? Getting CSS-1 right was not too much
trouble for the Mac team.
One more example. In 1998, the WaSP's CSS Samurai began testing browsers for CSS compliance. Among the
challenges our wizards devised was a "Box Acid Test" which no browser handled
correctly at the time. Today, IE/5 Mac handles the Box Acid Test like a charm. You'd think
IE5.5/Windows would do likewise. Think again. The
browser fails.
How about HTML 4.0? Microsoft got it right in IE5/Mac. In Windows, it's still
unfinished.
HTML 4.0 is important because it provides a vast number of built-in accessibility
improvements, allowing more people to use the Web. It makes no sense to leave parts of
HTML 4.0 unfinished when doing so impairs Web access for international users, people with
disabilities, those with much older browsers or much newer platforms like PDAs and cell
phones. Locking out users is morally wrong, bad for business, and contrary to U.S. law. Tangling with the government
seems like something Microsoft would want to avoid. Losing marketshare when the government
mandates use of browsers that accommodate W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is
also, to use a technical term, kinda stupid.
Four years ago, the CSS-1 Recommendation was stabilized. Two years ago, XML 1.0 was
stabilized. In that year we outlined exactly what was needed to save the Web from
incompatibilities that fragment the market and slam the door on millions of potential Web
users.
Microsoft claims that they don't know what we mean by support and by standards. For
instance, that they don't know what we mean by XML. Here's what we mean: reading XML 1.0
syntax (stable since February 1998), displaying it using CSS level 1 (December 1996), and
maybe as an optional extra level 2 (May 1998), programming access through the DOM Level 1
(October 1998), and embedding HTML using Namespaces (January 1999). Note that all of these
recommendation are over a year old, with many older than two.
Microsoft says they are not sure what we mean by "complete" support. We mean
"complete." What part of "complete" don't they understand? Anybody who
is as obviously smart and tuned-in as Microsoft, but claims not to understand what
"complete" means, is playing some kind of game. Guys, standards are not a game,
and supporting standards is not something anybody can do half-way, when they feel like it.
It is a necessity if the Web is to move forward. It's necessary for humanitarian reasons
(accessibility). It's necessary to meet the needs of pure, greed-driven Capitalism
(e-commerce).
Microsoft championed standards when its browser was the underdog. Now that IE dominates
the market, Microsoft talks of "freedom to innovate." Sounds suspiciously like
Netscape's rationale when they were on top.
Web browsers are not like other software. The market-leading paint program can innovate
all it wants. It does not have to be compatible with other paint programs, as long as it
outputs standard image files. But the Web is an eco-system, and eco-systems die unless
life forms cooperate.
When the market leader emphasizes colored scrollbars instead of commonalities, the Web
gets fractured, users get hurt, Web developers stay up all night coding workarounds, and
Web site operators get their wallets drained paying those developers. [We'll do without
the money, honest - just give our night-time hours back!]
By fumbling the standards ball, and tantalizing developers with nifty proprietary
features, Microsoft pretty much guarantees that the Web space will become more fractured
(not less) and Web developers will either have to stop supporting some users, or work even
longer hours creating page versions for each incompatible browser on the market.
It looks like the WaSP won't be invited to Bill's house for dinner any time soon.
But that's okay. We'll be working nights anyway.
– The WaSP
|