[backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Seeing how everyone's so vocal about the BBC recently, I thought it was worth turning our attention to the W3C (yeah it wasn't as slick a transition as it should have been) Mark Pilgrim outlines the friction which is building up between developers in the field and the tall towers of the W3C? http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/08/23/overton-window In recent weeks I’ve noticed a burst of chatter about certain W3C standards, the working groups that define them, and the W3C itself. I have followed (and occasionally participated in) web standards discussions for several years, and I’ve been trying put this recent flurry of activity in context. I believe it can best be explained in terms of the Overton window. Someone on the list already suggested Backstage should be more involved in the W3C standard process. And I agree... But I was wondering what everyone else thinks? Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Ian Forrester wrote: Seeing how everyone's so vocal about the BBC recently, I thought it was worth turning our attention to the W3C (yeah it wasn't as slick a transition as it should have been) Mark Pilgrim outlines the friction which is building up between developers in the field and the tall towers of the W3C? http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/08/23/overton-window In recent weeks I’ve noticed a burst of chatter about certain W3C standards, the working groups that define them, and the W3C itself. I have followed (and occasionally participated in) web standards discussions for several years, and I’ve been trying put this recent flurry of activity in context. I believe it can best be explained in terms of the Overton window. Someone on the list already suggested Backstage should be more involved in the W3C standard process. And I agree... But I was wondering what everyone else thinks? I think http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166 should be on the reading list here. My brief take: now is the time for W3C to move out of the industry consortium / browser wars mode of operation, and to catch up with the ways of working popularised by the opensource movement: most importantly - publically visible, bloggable, google-able archives for all technical discussion. This is happening, but too slowly. Also there's a need for a participation model that allows greater involvement for the vast mass of humanity who happen not to be employed by one of the few hundred organisations that pay annual membership fees to the W3C. W3C is my favourite standards organisation, and not just 'cos I was on W3C staff for 6 years! There are some brilliant people and fantastic works in the W3C community. But it is really being held back, and increasingly damaged, by its membership and participation model, which forces it to conflate the 'evolution of the Web' with 'the creation and update of formal Web standards'. The promise of exciting new standards shaped by W3C membership is the engine that keeps membership fees rolling in. But we've reached a point I fear where yet more standards are damaging, and what is needed instead is integration, integration, integration. Not such an exciting driver for those considering paying W3C member fees. But sorely needed... imho etc., Dan -- http://danbri.org/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
My brief take: now is the time for W3C to move out of the industry consortium / browser wars mode of operation, and to catch up with the ways of working popularised by the opensource movement: most importantly - publically visible, bloggable, google-able archives for all technical discussion. I completely agree. But (and I'll probably end up fanning the flames with this) there is another model which can also be looked at. Look at the progress Macromedia/Adobe have made with Flash and the Flash player since it was first released. Originally a simple shape tweening program, it is now a power house for animation, scripting, video and server communications. I'm not saying it doesn't have problems (accessibility etc), of course it does. Indeed I prefer working with html/css myself. However, the progress that Flash has made while html has been relatively static is staggering. And the reason for this has to be the lagging support for the standards that the W3C produce (Adobe of course have complete control over their player). So perhaps the W3C should throw their weight behind a browser to make it as compliant as possible - blow the dust of Amaya for example. It's also interesting to note that, in part, the resurgence of standards based development can be attributed to the non-standard xmlhttprequest javascript object (thank you Microsoft - can't believe I said that - although the gears are now set in motion to make it a standard since everyone loves it so). A few thoughts... Allan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Allan Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's also interesting to note that, in part, the resurgence of > standards based development can be attributed to the non-standard > xmlhttprequest javascript object (thank you Microsoft - can't believe > I said that - although the gears are now set in motion to make it a > standard since everyone loves it so). Or this could all simply indicate that the W3C is being very sensible and not trying to push standards beyond what people are actually doing or want to do. HTML/XML/RDF are perfectly adequate for all our data description needs and all are standardized. Indeed, the W3C may be waiting for us, the users, to point the way with constraints. Hence microformats are proving more popular than RDF. Remember, standards aren't spurious things... you only need one where you need one /8-> The example you give of Flash is an interesting one... but SVG has also come a long way and is a similarly complex technology. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Or this could all simply indicate that the W3C is being very sensible and not trying to push standards beyond what people are actually doing or want to do. Perhaps to some extent. But then you end up in a situation such as the MSIE / Netscape browser war where multiple features are introduced, with each party wanting their own extensions included into the spec. Which ever is most popular wins, but leaves a number of developers / users out in the cold. Until 802.11x came along, very few people used wireless computer networks, similarly with GSM for mobile phones. Perhaps the W3C should trail blaze in the same manner. Indeed html and xml were 'new' (if tidied up sgml) and presented many new opportunities. The example you give of Flash is an interesting one... but SVG has also come a long way and is a similarly complex technology. Indeed it has. And I've used SVG for a few experiments, to get a feel for it. The spec looks good and very powerful. Now if only someone would implement it. Opera, Safari and Firefox are all developing their SVG support, however it is slow going. Opera appears to be furthest along, with Firefox 2 supporting a sub-set of the spec and Safari having limited support in nightly builds. One of the most powerful features of SVG imho is the ability to mix xml namespaces using the foreignObject in SVG. Which Safari supports, but does little else, Opera doesn't support and Mozilla (1.8? Firefox 3) will / does in nightlys. This is why I suggested that perhaps the W3C should look at developing a standards based browser, to push other browser developers to support new standards less than five years after they are released... Don't get me wrong - I have great respect for the W3C, and to some extent their task is impossible. But it does need a shake up, because it's not quite working at the moment. A - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
So the questions is what could the BBC Backstage be doing to help the W3C? Besides recommending good practice and standards? Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allan Jardine Sent: 30 November 2006 09:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window > Or this could all simply indicate that the W3C is being very sensible > and not trying to push standards beyond what people are actually doing > or want to do. Perhaps to some extent. But then you end up in a situation such as the MSIE / Netscape browser war where multiple features are introduced, with each party wanting their own extensions included into the spec. Which ever is most popular wins, but leaves a number of developers / users out in the cold. Until 802.11x came along, very few people used wireless computer networks, similarly with GSM for mobile phones. Perhaps the W3C should trail blaze in the same manner. Indeed html and xml were 'new' (if tidied up sgml) and presented many new opportunities. > The example you give of Flash is an interesting one... but SVG has > also come a long way and is a similarly complex technology. Indeed it has. And I've used SVG for a few experiments, to get a feel for it. The spec looks good and very powerful. Now if only someone would implement it. Opera, Safari and Firefox are all developing their SVG support, however it is slow going. Opera appears to be furthest along, with Firefox 2 supporting a sub-set of the spec and Safari having limited support in nightly builds. One of the most powerful features of SVG imho is the ability to mix xml namespaces using the foreignObject in SVG. Which Safari supports, but does little else, Opera doesn't support and Mozilla (1.8? Firefox 3) will / does in nightlys. This is why I suggested that perhaps the W3C should look at developing a standards based browser, to push other browser developers to support new standards less than five years after they are released... Don't get me wrong - I have great respect for the W3C, and to some extent their task is impossible. But it does need a shake up, because it's not quite working at the moment. A - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
"Ian Forrester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So the questions is what could the BBC Backstage be doing to help > the W3C? Besides recommending good practice and standards? Get the BBC to use W3C standards more? I'd say that was the biggest thing. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
From looking at their web-site, perhaps Backstage could show them the way to a better designer. On the front page it mentions W3C over 40 times.. I fell of my seat before I got to the About page, but I was smiling broadly as I got up off the floor. Freakonomics can definitely be a recommendation for them if they agree with Overton. For sure they could do more to include, involve, and promote the positive direction. Beginning with the language they use. Regards Richard On 30 Nov 2006, at 11:39, Ian Forrester wrote: So the questions is what could the BBC Backstage be doing to help the W3C? Besides recommending good practice and standards? Ian Forrester || backstage.bbc.co.uk || x83965 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allan Jardine Sent: 30 November 2006 09:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window Or this could all simply indicate that the W3C is being very sensible and not trying to push standards beyond what people are actually doing or want to do. Perhaps to some extent. But then you end up in a situation such as the MSIE / Netscape browser war where multiple features are introduced, with each party wanting their own extensions included into the spec. Which ever is most popular wins, but leaves a number of developers / users out in the cold. Until 802.11x came along, very few people used wireless computer networks, similarly with GSM for mobile phones. Perhaps the W3C should trail blaze in the same manner. Indeed html and xml were 'new' (if tidied up sgml) and presented many new opportunities. The example you give of Flash is an interesting one... but SVG has also come a long way and is a similarly complex technology. Indeed it has. And I've used SVG for a few experiments, to get a feel for it. The spec looks good and very powerful. Now if only someone would implement it. Opera, Safari and Firefox are all developing their SVG support, however it is slow going. Opera appears to be furthest along, with Firefox 2 supporting a sub-set of the spec and Safari having limited support in nightly builds. One of the most powerful features of SVG imho is the ability to mix xml namespaces using the foreignObject in SVG. Which Safari supports, but does little else, Opera doesn't support and Mozilla (1.8? Firefox 3) will / does in nightlys. This is why I suggested that perhaps the W3C should look at developing a standards based browser, to push other browser developers to support new standards less than five years after they are released... Don't get me wrong - I have great respect for the W3C, and to some extent their task is impossible. But it does need a shake up, because it's not quite working at the moment. A - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Ian Forrester: > So the questions is what could the BBC Backstage be doing to > help the W3C? Besides recommending good practice and standards? The BBC could clean-up its HTML output (at the very least that messy toolbar that gives my IA's such headaches), and enforce (not request) accessibility. With such a large audience, I think those changes could have a very positive knock-on effect. But I also feel it's a matter of principle: I expect to see the BBC's very high standards and quality measures applied to the source code of its websites in a way that it is not. Must say that I've noticed these changes are being implemented, and it does seem that BBC internet services are (going to be) much more central to the organisation that they have been in the past, so I hope to see W3C standards promoted even more highly. Whilst tiny "W3C Valid XHTML" badges generally annoy me, but I think the BBC is the perfect place to display them. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
I disagree, its all about the audience - W3C is a resource listing technical specifications of complex standards going back well over 10 years. I'd imagine its audience is highly technical and couldn't really give a damn about the design or fluff text. If you want to learn HTML or any of the other standards specified then you should buy a book like HTML Goodies by Joe Burns (like I did!), but if you want the definitive, specified standard then you should go to the no-nonsense w3.org site. J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 30 November 2006 14:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window From looking at their web-site, perhaps Backstage could show them the way to a better designer. On the front page it mentions W3C over 40 times.. I fell of my seat before I got to the About page, but I was smiling broadly as I got up off the floor. Freakonomics can definitely be a recommendation for them if they agree with Overton. For sure they could do more to include, involve, and promote the positive direction. Beginning with the language they use. Regards Richard - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
> Whilst tiny "W3C Valid XHTML" badges generally annoy me, but I think the BBC is the perfect place to display them. This is where some standards advocates over do it for me. 99.999%* of visitors to the BBC homepage (or pretty much any other mainstream website) don't care how its made - they just care that it works. Just like you don't care what printing process was used on your newspaper or what codec was used to deliver your Freeview picture. Techies like us naturally think about how technology is delivered and what standard is used, because it is what we do. Users on the other hand don't care if their news feed is RSS or Atom, a page has a CSS or table layout, or an image is a GIF or JPG - they just want it consume it reliably. Having to, or wanting to explain how something is achieved to an end users is, to me, a sign of the technology's infancy - and is something we need to overcome. Best recent example of this - Flash video - it just works and everyone loves it. :-D J * Unscientific number of 9s added, but you get the point ;-) Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Jason Cartwright: > > Lee Goddard: > > Whilst tiny "W3C Valid XHTML" badges generally annoy me, but I think > > the BBC is the perfect place to display them. > > ... Having to, or wanting to explain how something is achieved to > an end users is, to me, a sign of the technology's infancy - > and is something we need to overcome. Best recent example of > this - Flash video - it just works and everyone loves it. > :-D :) I wasn't thinking of the non-technies, but rather sticking the badge in the footer. A tiny little badge, You'd hardly notice it. Just feel that the BBC should be representing standards on all levels: whilst these days most listeners may not notice a split infinitive, one still expects split infinitives to be caught before reaching the airwaves Failing that, just sorting out the messy HTML (Barley) would be ... so very, very nice! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
> :) I wasn't thinking of the non-technies, but rather sticking > the badge in the footer. A tiny little badge, You'd hardly > notice it. Just feel that the BBC should be representing > standards on all levels: whilst these days most listeners may > not notice a split infinitive, one still expects split > infinitives to be caught before reaching the airwaves Careful now. There is a pretty large school of thought that says there is no problem with split infinitives in English. Complaining about split infinitives is kind of like saying "guess what happened to Mike and I". - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
On 30/11/06, Deirdre Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > :) I wasn't thinking of the non-technies, but rather sticking > the badge in the footer. A tiny little badge, You'd hardly > notice it. Just feel that the BBC should be representing > standards on all levels: whilst these days most listeners may > not notice a split infinitive, one still expects split > infinitives to be caught before reaching the airwaves Careful now. There is a pretty large school of thought that says there is no problem with split infinitives in English. Complaining about split infinitives is kind of like saying "guess what happened to Mike and I". I tend to agree. So what did happen to you and Mike then? -- Andy Roberts http://distributedresearch.net/blog/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
At 18:51 + 30/11/06, Andy Roberts wrote: On 30/11/06, Deirdre Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :) I wasn't thinking of the non-technies, but rather sticking the badge in the footer. A tiny little badge, You'd hardly notice it. Just feel that the BBC should be representing standards on all levels: whilst these days most listeners may not notice a split infinitive, one still expects split infinitives to be caught before reaching the airwaves Careful now. There is a pretty large school of thought that says there is no problem with split infinitives in English. Complaining about split infinitives is kind of like saying "guess what happened to Mike and I". I tend to agree. So what did happen to you and Mike then? Mike and I went out. Gordo -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Gordon Joly: > > At 18:51 + 30/11/06, Andy Roberts wrote: > >On 30/11/06, Deirdre Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> :) I wasn't thinking of the non-technies, but rather > sticking the > >>> badge in the footer. A tiny little badge, You'd hardly > notice it. > >>> Just feel that the BBC should be representing standards on all > >>> levels: whilst these days most listeners may not notice a split > >>> infinitive, one still expects split infinitives to be > caught before > >>> reaching the airwaves > >> > >>Careful now. There is a pretty large school of thought that > says there > >>is no problem with split infinitives in English. Complaining about > >>split infinitives is kind of like saying "guess what > happened to Mike and I". I realised that as I wrote -- but I rather like the provocation that solid standards seem to have on large schools of people: I used to get a kick out of pointing out Microcruft's W3C breaches. Now they've got their act together, I need a new hobbyhorse, and think the Beeb is convenient (coz I'm sat here). Really, not too radical to suggest the BBC be a standard bearer, is it? Lee Goddard http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
> Mike and I went out. > behind my back :-O > > Gordo > > -- > "Think Feynman"/ > http://pobox.com/~gordo/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
The W3C make it clear that they wish to include the public, that is in their remit. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ Sadly, W3C would seem content to be a club of Techies. Although I take my hat off to Backstage for allowing public comment, the barriers of lexical language exist even here, as has been shown recently. Today, no one needs to know the rules or standards to build web- pages, hence 99.95% of people, mostly the public, actually drive the whole application to unknown ends. As we have seen with censorship and government intervention, the "lawmakers" are running along behind playing catchup. Eg.I don't recall the introduction of GeoIP being a public event for the BBC. So, I stand by my original point, either include the public by making a better presentation, or just lose ground. That doesn't stop members from discussing the detail. Anyone remember the debate over dual key encryption? Since that point, around 1992 from memory, the public has paid a pretty huge price for lack of security in computing. The audience is the public, and the more that we are included the better. My three pence worth. :-) P.S. Never read a book of HTML in my life, but 1170 pages of Java were useful. :-) < 20 years of using the web have been even more fun. Regards, Richard Edwards. On 3 Dec 2006, at 23:46, gareth rushgrove wrote: Hi All On 30/11/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I disagree, its all about the audience - W3C is a resource listing technical specifications of complex standards going back well over 10 years. I'd imagine its audience is highly technical and couldn't really give a damn about the design or fluff text. I guess that's the problem. The W3C's audience is, directly, us techies (who have all read the HTTP spec several times, right?) but also, indirectly, everyone who uses the web. If you want to learn HTML or any of the other standards specified then you should buy a book like HTML Goodies by Joe Burns (like I did!), but if you want the definitive, specified standard then you should go to the no-nonsense w3.org site. Again I agree, but for the want of more made up stats only 0.05% of web users want to know how it's made. So the W3C has a choice to make. Should it remain, and focus upon, being a technical specification and standards body soly for techies (so people should stop including the initials in tenders and non-proper-technical documents and the like) or should it expand it's remit into the social "making the web a better place" political spectrum? I think the community model around backstage has something to offer both approaches. For the former, it's a good model of community involvement and submission, if mainly a UK based one. For the latter, then the general elevation of usefulness, in terms of ideas, is an interesting one. Just my tuppence. I might have more to say on the whole W3C subject soon too as the company I work for recently joined. So I get to be on the other side of the fence for a while. G J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 30 November 2006 14:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window From looking at their web-site, perhaps Backstage could show them the way to a better designer. On the front page it mentions W3C over 40 times.. I fell of my seat before I got to the About page, but I was smiling broadly as I got up off the floor. Freakonomics can definitely be a recommendation for them if they agree with Overton. For sure they could do more to include, involve, and promote the positive direction. Beginning with the language they use. Regards Richard - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/ 2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http:// www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Gareth Rushgrove morethanseven.net webdesignbookshelf.com refreshnewcastle.org frontendarchitecture.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: RE: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
Hi All On 30/11/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I disagree, its all about the audience - W3C is a resource listing technical specifications of complex standards going back well over 10 years. I'd imagine its audience is highly technical and couldn't really give a damn about the design or fluff text. I guess that's the problem. The W3C's audience is, directly, us techies (who have all read the HTTP spec several times, right?) but also, indirectly, everyone who uses the web. If you want to learn HTML or any of the other standards specified then you should buy a book like HTML Goodies by Joe Burns (like I did!), but if you want the definitive, specified standard then you should go to the no-nonsense w3.org site. Again I agree, but for the want of more made up stats only 0.05% of web users want to know how it's made. So the W3C has a choice to make. Should it remain, and focus upon, being a technical specification and standards body soly for techies (so people should stop including the initials in tenders and non-proper-technical documents and the like) or should it expand it's remit into the social "making the web a better place" political spectrum? I think the community model around backstage has something to offer both approaches. For the former, it's a good model of community involvement and submission, if mainly a UK based one. For the latter, then the general elevation of usefulness, in terms of ideas, is an interesting one. Just my tuppence. I might have more to say on the whole W3C subject soon too as the company I work for recently joined. So I get to be on the other side of the fence for a while. G J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 22) 59487 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P Edwards Sent: 30 November 2006 14:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window From looking at their web-site, perhaps Backstage could show them the way to a better designer. On the front page it mentions W3C over 40 times.. I fell of my seat before I got to the About page, but I was smiling broadly as I got up off the floor. Freakonomics can definitely be a recommendation for them if they agree with Overton. For sure they could do more to include, involve, and promote the positive direction. Beginning with the language they use. Regards Richard - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Gareth Rushgrove morethanseven.net webdesignbookshelf.com refreshnewcastle.org frontendarchitecture.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
