W3C/Standards Documentation Buzz Archive - The Web Standards Project

Buzz Archives: W3C/Standards Documentation

Calling all CSS-Savvy Designers

Kevin Lawver, AOL's representative to the CSS Working Group, is making a plea to the design community to give the Working Group feedback on the CSS3 Borders and Backgrounds module. It isn't often one gets the opportunity to help define the tools you'll be using in your job, and this is ...

By Chris Kaminski | July 21st, 2005

Bad Form

There's an interesting article over at ZDNet about the future of forms on the web. Is the way forward Xforms? Or is Web Forms 2.0 the way forward? Or are we gonna find ourselves having to deal with both? Read the article and decide for yourself whether this is a ...

By Ian Lloyd | February 18th, 2005

W3C Rebranding

Andrei Herasimchuk has posted an excellent logo design tutorial based on his efforts to redesign the W3C logo. Andrei undertook the exercise after Dean Jackson asked him to lend a hand with an upcoming W3C ten year anniversary event.

By Chris Kaminski | September 7th, 2004

(X)HTML FAQ

The W3C would like to take a moment to clear up some frequently asked questions. In a brand new FAQ, they address the differences between HTML and XHTML, and what they mean to content authors. If you've ever wondered why XHTML changed things that used to work in HTML, this ...

By Dave Shea | July 21st, 2004

WHAT’s going on?

Over on the WHAT WG front, Ian Hickson has posted an update on the progress of WHAT WG in their efforts to develop backwards-compatible extensions to HTML. Ian’s post includes some very interesting background to the formation of WHAT and the impetus behind their efforts. Joe Gregorio has some other ...

By Chris Kaminski | July 10th, 2004

What’s in a namespace?

Following up on Anders Pearson's Safari post, Dave Hyatt has decided to use namespaces for the Apple's HTML extensions. The move seems to have largely satisfied Eric Meyer and Tim Bray, though Eric would still like to see a different DOCTYPE used. Personally, I agree with their ultimate conclusion: things ...

By Chris Kaminski | July 10th, 2004

It’s Okay to SMIL Again

The Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) - pronounced smile - is an XML-based W3C specification that offers numerous creative and practical uses for web-based multimedia applications. But, SMIL has been frowning along for years now with no significant activity or momentum. If you've been wondering whether SMIL was headed off to ...

By Molly E. Holzschlag | May 1st, 2004

W3C Recs the DOM3 Core

The Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Core Specification was released today by the W3C as a full-fledged Recommendation. This module provides the foundation for all the other modules in the DOM Level 3 architecture. Also today, the DOM Level 3 Load & Save module, which defines the interface for dynamically ...

By Porter Glendinning | April 7th, 2004

Two DOM3 Modules Reach Proposed Recommendation Status

On Thursday the W3C released the DOM Level 3 Core and Load & Save modules as Proposed Recommendations. This is the final stop on the path to being a full-fledged W3C Recommendation. Both modules will be open for implementation feedback until March 5.

By Porter Glendinning | February 7th, 2004

W3C sets recommendations for mobile Web standards

W3C pushes handheld devices forward with its approved technical specs for mobile Web standards. The spec, Composite Capability / Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structures and Vocabularies 1.0, enables mobiles phones and PDAs to communicate with Web servers. The CC/PP 1.0 spec uses RDF (Resource Description Framework).

By Meryl K. Evans | January 16th, 2004

W3C Calls for Invalidation of Eolas Patent

In the latest bout of activity surrounding the controversial Eolas vs Microsoft case, Tim Berners-Lee, director of the W3C and inventor of the World Wide Web, wrote an impassioned letter to the director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Acting on behalf of the HTML Patent Advisory ...

By Ethan Marcotte | October 29th, 2003

It’s Bad Form to be Late

But better late than never, I always say, particularly when mentioning a new W3C official recommendation a week after it's announced. My bad. XForms 1.0 became an official recommendation on 14 October and is deemed an improvement over HTML for handling electronic forms as it has the ability to separate purpose, ...

By Ian Lloyd | October 21st, 2003

Revisiting XHTML

Ever since XHTML was introduced in January of 2000, arguments as to its use and rationale have been flung about in numerous XML, markup, and Web design forums and lists. Publishing our recent WaSP coverage on serving XHTML with the proper MIME type helped stir up the old pot once ...

By Molly E. Holzschlag | September 5th, 2003

New CSS Working Drafts

The W3C Working Groups on Wednesday released three new Working Drafts attached to CSS: the CSS3 Presentation Levels Module, meant to aid creation of outlines and slide presentations; the CSS Print Profile, for printing documents on low-cost hardware; and the CSS3 Syntax Module. Developer comments on these ...

By Ben Henick | August 15th, 2003

SVG 1.1 now a Recommendation

The W3C's Scalable Vector Graphics 1.1 Specification made it to full Recommendation status this week. This version incorporates the errata from SVG 1.0 and breaks the Spec up into modules that can be used as building blocks for creating focused language profiles. Along with SVG 1.1, two such profiles for mobile ...

By Porter Glendinning | January 18th, 2003

DOM Level 2 HTML Spec Official

The W3C released the Document Object Model Level 2 HTML Specification today as an official Recommendation. Of particular interest is this note: This specification renders the DOM Level 1 HTML Recommendation obsolete given that some changes from DOM Level 1 HTML are incompatible with that specification but represent more accurately ...

By Porter Glendinning | January 9th, 2003

Is there a draft in here?

The third XHTML 2.0 Working Draft was published yesterday. It is largely a corrective release, fixing some problems that were introduced in the second Working Draft, which was made public last week. As the W3C points out, XHTML 2.0 is a relative of the Web's familiar publishing languages, HTML 4 and ...

By Porter Glendinning | December 19th, 2002

W3C to Write Clearer Guidelines?

Yesterday, August 26, 2002, the Quality Assurance (QA) Working Group released a Working Draft of the specification guidelines for QA Framework. The goal of this document is to provide a framework for all Working Groups within the W3C to write "clearer, more implementable, and better testable technical reports." Will this honestly ...

By Molly E. Holzschlag | August 27th, 2002

XHTML 2.0

The W3C has published the XHTML 2.0 Working Draft. No DTDs or Schemae yet, but they say they will be forthcoming once the language stabilizes. It is worth noting that the introduction explicitly states that it is not intended to be backwards compatible with the earlier versions of HTML and ...

By Steven Champeon | August 6th, 2002

XHTML 1.0, Second Edition

XHTML 1.0 Second Edition has left the building. It’s not a revision to XHTML, but simply the latest version of W3C’s official documentation about the XHTML 1.0 standard. Among other things, this version finally includes a warning about the optional XML declaration that wreaks havoc with many browsers old and ...

By Jeffrey Zeldman | August 2nd, 2002

W3C Quality Assurance

Want to get involved in helping promote the quality of W3C process and work? The W3C Quality Assurance (QA) working group's goals include planning and process; better, more testable specifications; coordination with internal and external groups; and building and acquiring conformance test materials. For more information on Quality Assurance at the ...

By Molly E. Holzschlag | June 4th, 2002

The Web Standards Project is a grassroots coalition fighting for standards which ensure simple, affordable access to web technologies for all.

Recent Buzz

Call for action on Vendor Prefixes

By Rachel Andrew | February 9th, 2012

When I first became involved with The Web Standards Project I was, like most of my peers, either building two completely different sites to support the version 4 behemoths – Internet Explorer and Netscape, or making a decision as to which browser people should use to view the site.

Internet Explorer 6, despite all of the well known issues, was a breath of fresh air. We could use a lot of CSS2, we could lay out our pages using CSS, and many people decided that Internet Explorer was the browser they were going to support. This led to a raft of “only works in Internet Explorer” sites and applications, the reason why we are still stuck with IE6 today.

Ten years later. In many ways we are in the place that we wanted to be, when we were campaigning for web standards adoption by developers and browser manufacturers. Our browsers do support W3C specifications. We don’t have rafts of crazy bugs in standard features or vendor specific implementations of those features that vary wildly. I can build a complex layout and load it up in Internet Explorer 9, the latest Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome and it all look pretty much the same. This is what we were asking for.

It could not be said however, that all browsers are equal in 2012. Some have moved more quickly to implement parts of the CSS3 specification even when they are just at Working Draft status. Browsers have implemented these new features using Vendor Prefixes, enabling them to implement a feature that might change as it goes through the W3C process. Vendor Prefixes to some extent have helped to prevent the situation arising again where we have a standard feature implemented in different ways by different browsers. Thinking back over our history I believe that to be a good thing.

Whether you like Vendor Prefixes or not, we have a problem. Due to the rise in mobile browser usage, and many of those mobile browsers being based on WebKit, many developers have decided to essentially only use the -webkit- prefix, even for properties that have been implemented by other browsers. Today Daniel Glazman, W3C CSS Working Group Co-chairman, wrote a blog post, Call for action: the open web needs you now!. He, and the W3C CSS Working Group is concerned that if this continues, other browser manufacturers will simply start implementing the -webkit prefix.

This approach seems very likely. If other browser manufacturers have implemented these features under their own prefix, yet web developers do not use those prefixes, then it makes their browsers look less capable than those based on WebKit. By simply implementing the -webkit prefix sites will look better in these browsers.

If this happens then we end up with a web once again controlled by one browser manufacturer. Once again we run the risk of having sites built only for one platform, and finding it very hard to get that platform to go away if things move on. Please read the above post. Please think about it every time you have to ensure your site works well in a browser that is over ten years old. Please do your bit to prevent -webkit becoming a de facto standard and hurting the Open Web.

How can you help?

Read the original post – Call for action: the open web needs you now!
If you have sites that test for WebKit browsers or only implement -webkit prefixes please take some time and update any -webkit-only property to use the other vendor-specific prefixes and non-prefixed versions.
Sign this petition & pledge telling browser makers not to implement the -webkit-* vendor prefix and promising to update the sites under your control.
Remove -webkit-only testing from repositories on GitHub – Pre-fix the web!

More commentary on the issue

Filed in General | Comments (2)

Title	Author
An End to Aging IE Installs	Aaron Gustafson
Beyond the Blue Beanie?	Stephanie (Sullivan) Rewis
The Sherpas are Here	Aaron Gustafson
HTML5? Check. Accessible HTML5? Um…	Aaron Gustafson

Working together for standards The Web Standards Project