Simon Willison’s Weblog

At this point all I could honestly tell you from the point of view of the editor of several of the HTML5 documents being held up is that the W3C have said they’re won’t publish without the objections being resolved, and that the objection is from Adobe. I can’t even tell what I could do to resolve the objection. It seems to be entirely a process-based objection.

— Ian Hickson # 15th February 2010, 7:38 pm

We did some studies and found that the attribute was almost never used, and most of the time, when it was used, it was a typo where someone meant to write rel=“” but wrote rev=“”. To be precise, the most commonly used value was rev=“made”, which is equivalent to rel=“author” and thus was not a convincing use case. The second most common value was rev=“stylesheet”, which is meaningless and obviously meant to be rel=“stylesheet”.

— Ian Hickson # 14th April 2009, 4:34 pm

The HTML5 parsing specification contains rules to transform any possible sequence of characters or bytes into a standard document object model. From conversations with Ian, I believe this was one of his primary goals for the initial HTML5 specification.

— Benjamin Smedberg # 15th January 2009, 10:19 pm

Someone asked for onbeforeunload, so I started fixing it. Then I found that there was some rot in the drywall. So I took down the drywall. Then I found a rat infestation. So I killed all the rats. Then I found that the reason for the rot was a slow leak in the plumbing. So I tried fixing the plumbing, but it turned out the whole building used lead pipes. So I had to redo all the plumbing. But then I found that the town’s water system wasn’t quite compatible with modern plumbing techniques, and I had to dig up the entire town. And that’s basically it.

— Ian Hickson # 19th December 2008, 1:58 pm

Ignoring reality in favour of what we would like to be true doesn’t actually work. This simple axiom probably underlies almost everything the WHATWG has done so far, and it has so far served us well.

— Ian Hickson # 7th April 2008, 7:24 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

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

The companies that couldn’t beat Microsoft have all died, and evolution has resulted in three very different types of companies that are each immune to Microsoft’s strategies in their own way. Yet all are still vulnerable to the same thing: a better product. For the end users, this is a good position for the industry to be in.

— Ian Hickson # 6th December 2007, 3:43 pm

I’ve actually been using the latest version of JAWS recently, as part of my work on HTML5. From a usability point of view it is possibly the worst software I have ever used. I’m still horrified at how bad the accessibility situation is. All this time I’ve been hearing people worried about whether or not Web pages have longdesc attributes specified or whatnot, when in fact the biggest problems facing blind users are so much more fundamental as to make image-related issues seem almost trivial in comparison.

— Ian Hickson # 4th September 2007, 12:27 pm