Archive for January 25th, 2006

W3C are a bunch of idiots — it seems

JBQueru: I’m reading about HTML5 😮

eugenia_loli: there is such thing?

eugenia_loli: or is it just xhtml

JBQueru: No, looks like there will be such a thing.

JBQueru: The what WG is working on xhtml2, which won’t be backward-compatible with xhtml1 (and therefore html4). The assumption is that some people will want to use some xhtml2 features without re-writing all their markup, and html5 is an unofficial markup that has all teh features of xhtml2 while maintaining backward compatibility.

JBQueru: Once again, w3 has no fscking clue.

eugenia_loli: why do they make it so complicated for everyone?

JBQueru: Because they’re idiots.

eugenia_loli: i mean, it doesn’t make any sense, have different things for different stuff… instead of having ONE standard and just going with that

JBQueru: It’s another case of “let’s create an incompatible solution to make things simpler”, without realizing that each time you do that you end up with both the old and hte new solution together.

eugenia_loli: hah

eugenia_loli: they are really-really idiotic these people

eugenia_loli: i wonder if all committees are the same

JBQueru: Yes, the incompatible solution would have been better if we had had it from day 1. But you can’t ignore the legacy of the real world.

eugenia_loli: yup

eugenia_loli: but they do

JBQueru: Some people use the same name for xhtml2 and html5, and some people explicitly distinguish them, so it’s hard to know.

JBQueru: That’s unfortunately a common trend in committees.

eugenia_loli: they are doing huge mistakes

eugenia_loli: ic

JBQueru: Certain you can bet that web browsers (like IE or mozilla) will include ways to use xhtml2 features in html, and if they’re no standard way to do it they’ll all use proprietary extensions. And then we’ll end up with the same story all over again.

Thankfully, not EVERYONE is a freaking idiot.