The future of web standards
Note: Below is a translation of the article The future of web standards , in which the author examines the current state of organizations related to the development of web standards and the possible future of both organizations and web standards themselves. My comments are further given in italics.
The industry of web design and web development based on the application of standards has been quite arousing lately. The Andy Clarke article "CSS Unworking Group" , apparently, opened the way for discussing the current unsatisfactory state of the approach (or lack thereof) of standardizing new opportunities for web developers and designers. The article by Alex Russell “The W3C Cannot Save Us” and my friend and former colleague Jeff Croft “Do we need a wars?” Continued this discussion, as did Stuart Langridge with “Reigniting the browser wars” , which appeared after I finished the first draft of this note.
In the end, I think all the questions raised can be attributed to one of two big problems:
')
The first, not too personal, is that the current progress in the development of new standards is, at best, frozen. HTML was created from the original idea to version 4.01 in less than a decade. But the current version 4.01 has not changed since the end of the last millennium (XHTML is not much better: version 1.0 was almost identical to HTML 4.01, with the exception of the XML syntax, and XHTML 1.1 did not greatly change the situation, since all innovations focused on reorganization and division standards for modules). Quite similarly, CSS has stiffened to the specification of version 2 since 1998, and CSS 2.1 is still just a “Candidate Recommendation”.
The second problem is that all major innovations on the Internet come from proprietary technologies: Flash pops up wherever possible, Microsoft and Adobe are working separately on the next generation of RIA ( rich internet application ), and the most fashionable word - “AJAX” - originally occurred from Microsoft’s solely technology (
If you take a closer look at both of these problems, a natural question arises: what happens to the web standards if the Internet as the medium for the exchange of information disappears at one point? What will happen if all texts and applications are no longer publicly accessible and will be separated by a wall of restrictions on private property, and all new opportunities will be provided exclusively in private?
The issues discussed — the slow speed of standardization and innovation, legitimizing still-non-standard things — are obviously strongly connected. The natural question is: how to solve them together, how to ensure a standardization process that can quickly respond to new ideas and encourage the implementation of existing standards?
Although I can not offer any way out of this situation, I have a couple of thoughts on a possible way to solve it, and I would like to discuss below where to find a successful behavior model for such a situation.
One of the most significant moments in solving these problems is that most of the discussion takes place under the initial assumption of a false dilemma ( false dilemma ), which implies that there are only two ways to implement the standardization process:
Naturally, there are not only two such possibilities, but only a few (for example, Daniel Glazman), apparently, realize that this is indeed the case. Therefore, firstly, we need to abandon this dilemma in general and understand that in fact there are an infinite number of possible community organizations that lie between these two poles. In other words, we need to find a balance between the contributions of people who use and develop Internet applications, and those that develop browsers and related technologies.
This leads us to the next question: how can we achieve agreement between the competing interests of web producers and web users / developers? Personally, it seems to me that the answer is to turn to our history: in the world of web standards, there is no need to look for new ways to find such agreement, we already know quite successful examples of this development, and those who want to reform the very organization of web standardization processes should will rely on them.
First of all, I think towards the development of open source software ( open-source ) that have faced similar problems many times: there is a huge amount of completely different open source software that is used by both “average American” and international corporations, and only a few of these projects are successfully developing. One such example of success is the Linux kernel; the community involved in its development is neither closed nor completely open, but something between these two extremes. Linux development is neither a dictatorial regime, nor a democracy: Linus Torvalds and his trusted "lieutenants" retain full control over the entire project, but any input from the active community is accepted for consideration. And although not all opinions are considered to be the same, the process of deciding which thoughts to give more weight, and which to others less, seems to be very practical and fair.
As a result, the participation of large corporations does not turn Linux into a closed developer community, and smaller participants can freely discuss and develop the project without turning it into a “screaming crowd” ( howling mob ). This is definitely a success, and such a model of behavior should in no case be overlooked when reforming the web standardization process.
Naturally, there are many other great examples of successful communities: Perl, Python, and Ruby, for example, are all developed with open source, but are completely controlled by a single “BDFL” ( termless generous dictator, Benevolent Dictator For Life ) and (a) its several “lieutenants ". The success of such an organization in many different industries shows that the process as a whole proceeds exceptionally favorably: a general pattern of behavior in which all the changes are discussed in the presence of several highly professional specialists who have a great credit of trust. They run the show and have enough weight to make the final decisions: what changes should be made and which ones should be rejected or subjected to further discussion. These same experts should prevent all possible drawbacks from using either of the two polar models described above.
The natural question arises whether the WHATWG , which has been working on optimizing, improving and expanding many standards for several years, can take the trouble to bring the web standardization process to mind, so that it can be implemented in the same way that the Linux development project now lives on. many other successful open source projects.
In this case, I honestly can’t imagine how this can be done, and I don’t know anyone who would represent it, although there is no lack of opinion both for and against. Much more competent and competent specialists than I, speak out quite differently, some say that the WHATWG is on the right path of development, others argue that this is a silly undertaking. However, there are a couple of encouraging things:
Most likely, someone will definitely recall the recent excitement about media codecs as an example, when WHATWG defended corporate interests too much, but I do not share this point of view (although, to be honest, I'm also not sure that the task of HTML- the specification is to indicate which media formats to use and which ones should not). Unlike many people who are beginning to prove their position on this issue with foaming at the mouth, I simply follow the discussion, and so far nothing in it has caused contradictions in me. The specification is no longer strongly recommended by Ogg Theora, but still leaves room for support for open and free media formats. In the end, it may turn out that the “unknown unknown” (using a quote from Tao by Donald Rumsfeld) will be worse for larger companies than the known unknown in the implementation of Theora. And the current language of the draft recommendation is more like the voice of the dentist, who claims that the sore tooth will ever fall out.
In any case, it is too early to talk about any certainty whatsoever. And it is not known whether WHATWG can take over the work on web specifications, especially CSS. Basically, the WHATWG work is now focused on HTML and DOM, as indicated in the current WHATWG draft specification .
The most significant obstacle to any reforms in the field of web standardization is the presence of Microsoft and everything related to it. While Microsoft is a full member of the W3C and a member of numerous working groups, all implementations of the resulting standards are extremely insignificant, if not to say, ridiculous. And all this despite the fact that Internet Explorer has a dominant position in the browser market, which naturally leads to the fact that all achievements in the world of web standards will be doomed to failure if they do not receive substantial support from Microsoft.
But from this point of view, to be honest, I’m not sure that Microsoft’s position can be significant. In the end, apparently, no one considers it as essential.
If you haven’t read Joel Spolsky's “Fire and Motion” article yet, do it now, because all my words will not be so informative otherwise. Let's read it right now ( approx. In the article, the author funny talks about how Microsoft applies the principle of “Shoot and Run”, “Fire and Motion”, in action ), it is very interesting, but the most important thing that I would like to highlight Against the background of the rest of the facts, this is Microsoft’s dominant position, for the reason that Joel himself very eloquently expressed by comparing it with infantry combat tactics:
However, let's stop now and look at Internet Explorer 7 (oh, I mean “Windows Explorer 7”). IE7 is a great example of how Microsoft, despite the power of its advertising campaign, has to give in to industry requirements. Mozilla, Apple and Opera are attacking it from all sides: browser tabs, increased security, and all the improvements that people simply cannot live without - and Microsoft has to change its own strategy. As a result, many software vendors, trying to keep up with Microsoft, produce low-quality products, while Microsoft, oddly enough, has to go on about the Internet community and release a low-quality browser.
The same thing is happening with Microsoft at the same time in several ways:
Microsoft loses; it tries unsuccessfully to follow what has already been done, while the industry offers all the new features and technological solutions. Naturally, the dirge for Microsoft is still early to play, very early: IE is still the leader among browsers, and Windows is still the leader among operating systems. But the industry is already noticeable waves of change: Microsoft, impenetrable juggernaut, still suffers losses, and it has to follow all the innovations in order not to lose its dominant position. In this case, you can quote Lewis Carroll that she runs as fast as she can, but still remains in place.
And, of course, Microsoft is really not responsible for the actual future of web standards. Any development that occurs in this industry will only add fuel to the fire, on which the corporation is fried. Microsoft simply has no choice but to continue its “pursuit”, regardless of the quality of its participation in the overall process.
I really do not know. Right now I am doing some observations in this area and am doing a little analysis of the situation. I seriously believe that the issues involved will have a strong influence on any decision taken on this issue:
But after all this, I do not know the right way to solve the problem. At the moment, I am closely following the WHATWG (as well as the past few years, because it is the only organization that is really doing something), but maybe there will be a more favorable option. I believe that the most important step for all those who are dissatisfied with the situation with the status quo should be the decision on further actions. Andy Clarke has already proposed a couple of ideas , but at the same time he amusedly ridiculed the idea of ​​making a general decision by consensus, while all proposals were put forward by the community itself (and, apparently, was very interested in the false dilemma described above). This is all wonderful, especially the awareness of the fact that perhaps there is another opportunity for the development of events, but in which direction they will develop, it is almost impossible to predict. So, let me finish with a quote on this from one of my favorite philosophers, GK Chesterton (from the first part of his amazing book The Heretic ):
, . , .
Web Optimizator: checking the speed of loading sites
The industry of web design and web development based on the application of standards has been quite arousing lately. The Andy Clarke article "CSS Unworking Group" , apparently, opened the way for discussing the current unsatisfactory state of the approach (or lack thereof) of standardizing new opportunities for web developers and designers. The article by Alex Russell “The W3C Cannot Save Us” and my friend and former colleague Jeff Croft “Do we need a wars?” Continued this discussion, as did Stuart Langridge with “Reigniting the browser wars” , which appeared after I finished the first draft of this note.
In the end, I think all the questions raised can be attributed to one of two big problems:
')
The first, not too personal, is that the current progress in the development of new standards is, at best, frozen. HTML was created from the original idea to version 4.01 in less than a decade. But the current version 4.01 has not changed since the end of the last millennium (XHTML is not much better: version 1.0 was almost identical to HTML 4.01, with the exception of the XML syntax, and XHTML 1.1 did not greatly change the situation, since all innovations focused on reorganization and division standards for modules). Quite similarly, CSS has stiffened to the specification of version 2 since 1998, and CSS 2.1 is still just a “Candidate Recommendation”.
The second problem is that all major innovations on the Internet come from proprietary technologies: Flash pops up wherever possible, Microsoft and Adobe are working separately on the next generation of RIA ( rich internet application ), and the most fashionable word - “AJAX” - originally occurred from Microsoft’s solely technology (
XMLHttpRequest ), which was somehow incorporated into other browsers.If you take a closer look at both of these problems, a natural question arises: what happens to the web standards if the Internet as the medium for the exchange of information disappears at one point? What will happen if all texts and applications are no longer publicly accessible and will be separated by a wall of restrictions on private property, and all new opportunities will be provided exclusively in private?
The issues discussed — the slow speed of standardization and innovation, legitimizing still-non-standard things — are obviously strongly connected. The natural question is: how to solve them together, how to ensure a standardization process that can quickly respond to new ideas and encourage the implementation of existing standards?
Although I can not offer any way out of this situation, I have a couple of thoughts on a possible way to solve it, and I would like to discuss below where to find a successful behavior model for such a situation.
False Dilemma of Standardization Models
One of the most significant moments in solving these problems is that most of the discussion takes place under the initial assumption of a false dilemma ( false dilemma ), which implies that there are only two ways to implement the standardization process:
- Closed system with high qualification, pay-and-go. Now the W3C is perceived in just this vein.
- An enthusiastic community, fully regulated by its members.
Naturally, there are not only two such possibilities, but only a few (for example, Daniel Glazman), apparently, realize that this is indeed the case. Therefore, firstly, we need to abandon this dilemma in general and understand that in fact there are an infinite number of possible community organizations that lie between these two poles. In other words, we need to find a balance between the contributions of people who use and develop Internet applications, and those that develop browsers and related technologies.
In search of balance
This leads us to the next question: how can we achieve agreement between the competing interests of web producers and web users / developers? Personally, it seems to me that the answer is to turn to our history: in the world of web standards, there is no need to look for new ways to find such agreement, we already know quite successful examples of this development, and those who want to reform the very organization of web standardization processes should will rely on them.
First of all, I think towards the development of open source software ( open-source ) that have faced similar problems many times: there is a huge amount of completely different open source software that is used by both “average American” and international corporations, and only a few of these projects are successfully developing. One such example of success is the Linux kernel; the community involved in its development is neither closed nor completely open, but something between these two extremes. Linux development is neither a dictatorial regime, nor a democracy: Linus Torvalds and his trusted "lieutenants" retain full control over the entire project, but any input from the active community is accepted for consideration. And although not all opinions are considered to be the same, the process of deciding which thoughts to give more weight, and which to others less, seems to be very practical and fair.
As a result, the participation of large corporations does not turn Linux into a closed developer community, and smaller participants can freely discuss and develop the project without turning it into a “screaming crowd” ( howling mob ). This is definitely a success, and such a model of behavior should in no case be overlooked when reforming the web standardization process.
Naturally, there are many other great examples of successful communities: Perl, Python, and Ruby, for example, are all developed with open source, but are completely controlled by a single “BDFL” ( termless generous dictator, Benevolent Dictator For Life ) and (a) its several “lieutenants ". The success of such an organization in many different industries shows that the process as a whole proceeds exceptionally favorably: a general pattern of behavior in which all the changes are discussed in the presence of several highly professional specialists who have a great credit of trust. They run the show and have enough weight to make the final decisions: what changes should be made and which ones should be rejected or subjected to further discussion. These same experts should prevent all possible drawbacks from using either of the two polar models described above.
First W3C, then WHAT
The natural question arises whether the WHATWG , which has been working on optimizing, improving and expanding many standards for several years, can take the trouble to bring the web standardization process to mind, so that it can be implemented in the same way that the Linux development project now lives on. many other successful open source projects.
In this case, I honestly can’t imagine how this can be done, and I don’t know anyone who would represent it, although there is no lack of opinion both for and against. Much more competent and competent specialists than I, speak out quite differently, some say that the WHATWG is on the right path of development, others argue that this is a silly undertaking. However, there are a couple of encouraging things:
- Although the group as a whole is open, and anyone can join it, it is rather rigidly controlled by its own “BDFL” - Ian Hickson - who, perhaps, knows more about the web browsers and their history than any living person. Ian's participation in the WHATWG looks a lot like the classic behavior of BDFL in successful open source projects: he knows this area better than any of the participants, willingly directs the consideration and acceptance of even the smallest contribution to the overall process from any of the participants. He also, if anyone has been in the know on the WHATWG mailing list since September 2004, has a lot of experience in resolving conflicts, meeting all interests and finding good compromise solutions.
- Although the WHATWG is a fairly young group, it has already achieved some significant results: Apple, Mozilla and Opera are still actively working on the implementation of various recommendations from the WHATWG. The group also has the willingness to support the necessary innovations that need to be transferred from one area to another (for example, API ( Application Programming Interface ) for offline data storage, which was born and developed by Google Gears).
Most likely, someone will definitely recall the recent excitement about media codecs as an example, when WHATWG defended corporate interests too much, but I do not share this point of view (although, to be honest, I'm also not sure that the task of HTML- the specification is to indicate which media formats to use and which ones should not). Unlike many people who are beginning to prove their position on this issue with foaming at the mouth, I simply follow the discussion, and so far nothing in it has caused contradictions in me. The specification is no longer strongly recommended by Ogg Theora, but still leaves room for support for open and free media formats. In the end, it may turn out that the “unknown unknown” (using a quote from Tao by Donald Rumsfeld) will be worse for larger companies than the known unknown in the implementation of Theora. And the current language of the draft recommendation is more like the voice of the dentist, who claims that the sore tooth will ever fall out.
In any case, it is too early to talk about any certainty whatsoever. And it is not known whether WHATWG can take over the work on web specifications, especially CSS. Basically, the WHATWG work is now focused on HTML and DOM, as indicated in the current WHATWG draft specification .
Monster Microsoft'a
The most significant obstacle to any reforms in the field of web standardization is the presence of Microsoft and everything related to it. While Microsoft is a full member of the W3C and a member of numerous working groups, all implementations of the resulting standards are extremely insignificant, if not to say, ridiculous. And all this despite the fact that Internet Explorer has a dominant position in the browser market, which naturally leads to the fact that all achievements in the world of web standards will be doomed to failure if they do not receive substantial support from Microsoft.
But from this point of view, to be honest, I’m not sure that Microsoft’s position can be significant. In the end, apparently, no one considers it as essential.
If you haven’t read Joel Spolsky's “Fire and Motion” article yet, do it now, because all my words will not be so informative otherwise. Let's read it right now ( approx. In the article, the author funny talks about how Microsoft applies the principle of “Shoot and Run”, “Fire and Motion”, in action ), it is very interesting, but the most important thing that I would like to highlight Against the background of the rest of the facts, this is Microsoft’s dominant position, for the reason that Joel himself very eloquently expressed by comparing it with infantry combat tactics:
There is nothing left for competitors to do but to devote all your time to transfer [capabilities from one platform to another] and support [their programs] , the resources allocated for this cannot be spent on developing new opportunities. Let's take a general look at the software market. Companies that have achieved success are oriented only to large corporations and are not laid out in their development life cycles to fix bugs that are typical only for Windows XP. Those who are constantly lagging behind, trying to divine the coffee grounds to predict the direction of innovation in Microsoft. People are worried about .NET and decide to rewrite the entire architecture under .NET, because they think they need to do that. Microsoft is constantly attacking [with new ideas and developments] , and they have no choice but to take the fire on themselves, and not to move forward, because things are being done, friend.
However, let's stop now and look at Internet Explorer 7 (oh, I mean “Windows Explorer 7”). IE7 is a great example of how Microsoft, despite the power of its advertising campaign, has to give in to industry requirements. Mozilla, Apple and Opera are attacking it from all sides: browser tabs, increased security, and all the improvements that people simply cannot live without - and Microsoft has to change its own strategy. As a result, many software vendors, trying to keep up with Microsoft, produce low-quality products, while Microsoft, oddly enough, has to go on about the Internet community and release a low-quality browser.
The same thing is happening with Microsoft at the same time in several ways:
- The appearance of Apple is literally everywhere and the success of its products suggests that Microsoft is no longer the market leader in operating systems. As a result of this, Vista sagged: everything that could be interesting in it had long been born, and the release of Vista was just an attempt to catch up with OS X and present at least some competitive equivalent.
- The apparent Internet dominance of Flash technology and the emergence of the first applications on AIR ( Adobe Integrated Runtime ) and JavaFX again force Microsoft to “catch up” with the industry, only on a different front: as an extension for the Silverlight browser for the needs of the desktop API.
Microsoft loses; it tries unsuccessfully to follow what has already been done, while the industry offers all the new features and technological solutions. Naturally, the dirge for Microsoft is still early to play, very early: IE is still the leader among browsers, and Windows is still the leader among operating systems. But the industry is already noticeable waves of change: Microsoft, impenetrable juggernaut, still suffers losses, and it has to follow all the innovations in order not to lose its dominant position. In this case, you can quote Lewis Carroll that she runs as fast as she can, but still remains in place.
And, of course, Microsoft is really not responsible for the actual future of web standards. Any development that occurs in this industry will only add fuel to the fire, on which the corporation is fried. Microsoft simply has no choice but to continue its “pursuit”, regardless of the quality of its participation in the overall process.
Where does the world go?
I really do not know. Right now I am doing some observations in this area and am doing a little analysis of the situation. I seriously believe that the issues involved will have a strong influence on any decision taken on this issue:
- Any process of updating [standards] must come to equilibrium somewhere between two poles: a closed community and a “screaming crowd”, and you need to start with the realization that not only these two poles exist.
- Apparently, the best place for a successful example is the open source software community.
- The WHATWG has certain hopes, but it is too early to say what it is capable of, and whether it is a panacea in this situation.
- Microsoft's involvement should not be further considered significant.
But after all this, I do not know the right way to solve the problem. At the moment, I am closely following the WHATWG (as well as the past few years, because it is the only organization that is really doing something), but maybe there will be a more favorable option. I believe that the most important step for all those who are dissatisfied with the situation with the status quo should be the decision on further actions. Andy Clarke has already proposed a couple of ideas , but at the same time he amusedly ridiculed the idea of ​​making a general decision by consensus, while all proposals were put forward by the community itself (and, apparently, was very interested in the false dilemma described above). This is all wonderful, especially the awareness of the fact that perhaps there is another opportunity for the development of events, but in which direction they will develop, it is almost impossible to predict. So, let me finish with a quote on this from one of my favorite philosophers, GK Chesterton (from the first part of his amazing book The Heretic ):
Suppose an ugly bustle began on the street because of a gas lamp, which many influential people want to demolish. In the midst of a quarrel, a monk appears in a gray robe, embodying the spirit of the Middle Ages, and begins to broadcast plaintively in a dry manner to the scholastics: “Dear brothers, let us first consider the merits of Light. If Light is Good ... ”At this moment, he is mercifully knocked down. A hustle arises near a lamppost, after ten minutes the pole is tumbled down, and everyone congratulates each other on a practical achievement not typical of the Middle Ages.
However, further the matter develops tight. , ; ; — , . - , ; - , ; - - . , , . , — , — , - , .
, , .
, . , .
Web Optimizator: checking the speed of loading sites
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31357/
All Articles