Weekend Discussion

Friday March 3rd, 2000

This weekend's discussion: What keeps you interested in Mozilla, and what expectations do you have?

Just click the responses link below to enter the forum. Let us know what you think!

#128 The Tanyel Trilogy

by Tanyel <>

Tuesday March 7th, 2000 11:51 PM

You are replying to this message

A NEW HOPE "1) You feel that the current situation in web design, where authors need to code seperate implementations for every browser, isn't a problem, or at least is preferable to accepting a single standard for the language unless that standard is developed by internet-wide consensus."

No, that is not what I was saying at all. I think the "current situation" is a problem. I think the W3C is adding to that problem by creating yet another variation. I realize this is done supposedly to make things easier when the W3C dominates the Internet, but I think it might kill Mozilla before that happens.

"2) You feel that coding a browser to accept multiple interpretations of an HTML document is not unreasonably difficult, and should have been done by Mozilla."

I do not think making a Web browser is unreasonably difficult for people whose primary job is to make a Web browser. I believe that making a Web browser support two sets of rules is not significantly more difficult than making it support a single set of rules. I think Mozilla should have been "backward compatible", which means it should have been made to handle two interpretations.

"3) You feel that the only acceptable standard is one reached by consensus across the entire internet. Because the W3C does not seek this consensus, it should not be listened to."

I think everybody should be listened to. I think the W3C made some mistakes and Mozilla is going to suffer for adhering to those mistakes without being "backward compatible". This is not about silencing the W3C.

TANYEL STRIKES BACK "1) You may feel this way, but every professional web developer I've spoken with disagrees. Web designers are wasting vast amounts of time dealing with this /has/ to go away."

...or I may not feel that way. See episode IV.

"2) If you think you can do it, by all means gather others who feel similarly and implement it..."

This is not a question, complaint, or disagreement so I normally would not have responded to it. I reposted it to acknowledge that I read your suggestion, so you will not think I ignored it. You seem to think I ignored your post about the XSL mailing list.

"If you're not a programmer, please don't try to assert that it isn't excessively complex, or won't impose serious costs in terms of resource use."

I have read your sentence and determined that you have not asked me any questions in that sentence, but I am acknowledging that I read it. My assertions are the same.

"3) In my last post, I listed ways that you could have your voice heard in the W3C design process. You neither reposted nor responded to these ways."

I did not know you wanted me to repost that suggestion. I responded to it but did not make a clear association between my response and your post. I typed "Further, letting a bunch of rich people control the Internet is a mistake". It is my understanding that posting to such a mailing list would be offering a suggestion, but would not be a vote, which means the power still lies in the hands of the members who paid excessive amounts of money for more power than being able to send e-mail. In an earlier post, I typed "I am certain they see my comments in MozillaZine, since Mozilla is the only group I know of who seems to be listening to them". I believe members of the W3C already know of my opinions, but if you think they do not, tell me and I will consider sending comments to their mailing list.

"This makes your position on the W3C begin to sound dogmatic, rather than reasoned."

Does it still seem dogmatic? Where is my death star? I believe I have shown the foundation for every claim I have made about Mozilla or the W3C, and every claim has reason. The only claim, that I wish I could retract, is the one in which I told Ugg that I do not care about Ugg&#8217;s feelings. I think the truly "dogmatic" people are the ones who issue polemic posts about how I must be wrong just because I do not agree with all of the decisions of Mozilla and the W3C.

RETURN OF TANYEL "[Your claims that delaying the release of W3C recommendations until they are optimal] would have the W3C putting out a new standard so infrequently as to effectively not exist."

Releasing the recommendations without properly and completely designing them leads to shortsighted decisions. These shortsighted decisions lead to incompatible standards, which adds to the complexity of "code forks" and browser "sniffers". This may lead to standards being released faster but the standards will increase the amount of work necessary for pages to be compatible with existing browsers. They are also likely to cause more trouble in the future as the shortsightedness leads to new W3C recommendations, which invalidate old recommendations. I believe they call it deprecation, but I am not certain. This problem exists in the W3C, regardless of its labels.

"The standards should be published /prior/ to the browser makers doing an implementation; otherwise you create incompatibilities that are nobody's friend."

The standards have caused Mozilla to create a new browser that must be detected separately from other versions of Netscape, and cannot even handle Webpages designed for its predecessors. Also, see my reply to damian. I see the good in having common rules for Web browsers, but the rules should not render existing pages useless.

My original post was only three sentences and I never intended for it to lead to so much typing. Hopefully everything has been clarified. If you wish to ask me more questions, go ahead, and we will go on to Episode I.