OpenID16 items tagged “webstandards”
Why the webstandards world appears to be choosing Django. I’m not convinced that this is a definite trend, but it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. 
4th April 2008, 8:33 am
Ian’s Acid 3, unlike its predecessors, is not about establishing a baseline of useful web capabilities. It’s quite explicitly about making browser developers jump—Ian specifically sought out tests that were broken in WebKit, Opera, and Gecko, perhaps out of a twisted attempt at fairness. But the Acid tests shouldn’t be fair to browsers, they should be fair to the web; they should be based on how good the web will be as a platform if all browsers conform, not about how far any given browser has to stretch to get there.
— Mike Shaver 
27th March 2008, 1:35 pm
Opera and the Acid3 Test. Screenshot shows 100/100 (live code or it didn’t happen!)—Opera’s codebase must be in extremely good shape to fix so many issues so quickly. 
26th March 2008, 10:47 pm
We’ve decided that IE8 will, by default, interpret web content in the most standards compliant way it can. This decision is a change from what we’ve posted previously.
— IEBlog 
4th March 2008, 3 am
Legacy. James Bennett has what I think is the most interesting analysis of the X-UA-Compatible header to date. 23rd January 2008, 2:14 pm
If Web authors actually use this feature, and if IE doesn’t keep losing market share, then eventually this will cause serious problems for IE’s competitors — instead of just having to contend with reverse-engineering IE’s quirks mode and making the specs compatible with IE’s standards mode, the other browser vendors are going to have to reverse engineer every major IE browser version, and end up implementing these same bug modes themselves.
— Ian Hickson 23rd January 2008, 10:07 am
HTML 5 published as W3C First Public Working Draft! A significant step, almost completely overlooked in the hubbub over IE8. 23rd January 2008, 2:15 am
Broken. Jeremy highlights the fly in the ointment: if you want IE 8 to behave like IE 8 (and not pretend to be IE 7), you HAVE to include the X-UA-Compatible header. 22nd January 2008, 6:42 pm
The versioning switch is not a browser detect. PPK: “In other words, the versioning switch does not have any of the negative effects of a browser detect.” 22nd January 2008, 4:34 pm
Like DOCTYPE switching did in 2000, version targeting negates the vendor argument that existing behaviors can’t be changed for fear of breaking web sites. If IE8 botches its implementation of some CSS property or DOM method, the mistake can be fixed in IE9 without breaking sites developed in the IE8 era. This actually makes browser vendors more susceptible to pressure to fix their bugs, and less fearful of doing so.
— Eric Meyer 22nd January 2008, 2:24 pm
Beyond DOCTYPE: Web Standards, Forward Compatibility, and IE8. This has huge implications for client-side web developers: IE 8 will include the ability to mark a page as “tested and compatible with the IE7 rendering engine” using an X-UA-Compatible HTTP header or http-equiv meta element. It’s already attracting a heated debate in the attached discussion. 22nd January 2008, 12:40 pm
Boxing Day toy discovery: Mega Bloks not compatible with Duplo! See, Alex Russell? THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU INNOVATE AHEAD OF STANDARDS
— Yoz Grahame 26th December 2007, 5:58 pm
IE8 Passes Acid2 Test. This is huge. As Kevin Yank points out, this means IE8 includes proper support for the object tag, CSS table layout properties and generated content. 
20th December 2007, 3:11 pm
The future of web standards. Nice analysis from James Bennett, who suggests that successful open source projects (Linux, Python, Perl etc) could be used as the model for a more effective standards process, and points out that Ian Hickson is something of a BDFL for the WHAT-WG. 17th December 2007, 1:16 pm
CSS2.2. Andy Budd points out that CSS hasn’t had an update since 1998, and suggests rolling the most obviously useful parts of CSS 3 in to an incremental CSS 2.2. 6th May 2007, 10:45 pm
Tim Berners-Lee: Reinventing HTML. “It is necessary to evolve HTML incrementally.” W3C to work on HTML again. 28th October 2006, 12:27 am
