Comments on: Google’s Encyclop√¶dia Webtannica http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Linux-team http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71507 Linux-team Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:13:43 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71507 By the way, Mark Pilgrim told about another team and future cooperation and Microsoft team status - very high and looks like base orientir for new doctype. By the way, Mark Pilgrim told about another team and future cooperation and Microsoft team status – very high and looks like base orientir for new doctype.

]]>
By: AlexeyGfi http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71503 AlexeyGfi Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:19:40 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71503 Google - great creator team of great things - I agree, but like for me, better way (if we talk about global-things) to join forces of gigants of databases and knowleges (like MSDN ;-) ). Google – great creator team of great things – I agree, but like for me, better way (if we talk about global-things) to join forces of gigants of databases and knowleges (like MSDN ;-) ).

]]>
By: Butler http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71499 Butler Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:07:32 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71499 I have to agree with Mike's points on Google approach to the project. They have such a dominate position htat they can lead the way. Maybe they don't have all the best developers but they have enough resources to launch things better. I have to agree with Mike’s points on Google approach to the project. They have such a dominate position htat they can lead the way. Maybe they don’t have all the best developers but they have enough resources to launch things better.

]]>
By: Website Design Guy http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71489 Website Design Guy Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:40:48 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71489 I completely agree with Mike. In its market-dominating position, and with its huge resources, Google ought to be setting an example. No-one want's bells and whistles and whizz bang but neither do we want clunky and old-fashioned. I completely agree with Mike. In its market-dominating position, and with its huge resources, Google ought to be setting an example. No-one want’s bells and whistles and whizz bang but neither do we want clunky and old-fashioned.

]]>
By: Mike Furmaniak http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71330 Mike Furmaniak Sun, 18 May 2008 16:13:51 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71330 Google is absolute master of creating ugly things. Functional yes, elegant markup or CSS never. I don't belive that any web artist would contribute and want to use that ugly thing. Yuck!. That would be wourthwile seeing something like 5 years ago. Now the community has great documentation at magazines like "A list apart", sites like this one, or blogs of the great individuals like Eric's Mayer or SimpleBits homepage. Also many great books were published. If you'll ask me that move is strongly related to new Google hosting product (to provide people that will use it support in HTML, CSS and JS). In my opinion it will just break the web on smaller pieces instead of uniting it's structure and way's things get done by pointing wherever you can good sources of knowledge. Google should <em>start</em> by making it's own products <strong>valid</strong> and <strong>modern written</strong>, and then try to teach others how to do it. The present situation could be described only by sentence: <blockquote>F student giving math lessons to others.</blockquote> Google is absolute master of creating ugly things. Functional yes, elegant markup or CSS never. I don’t belive that any web artist would contribute and want to use that ugly thing. Yuck!.

That would be wourthwile seeing something like 5 years ago. Now the community has great documentation at magazines like “A list apart”, sites like this one, or blogs of the great individuals like Eric’s Mayer or SimpleBits homepage. Also many great books were published.

If you’ll ask me that move is strongly related to new Google hosting product (to provide people that will use it support in HTML, CSS and JS). In my opinion it will just break the web on smaller pieces instead of uniting it’s structure and way’s things get done by pointing wherever you can good sources of knowledge.

Google should start by making it’s own products valid and modern written, and then try to teach others how to do it. The present situation could be described only by sentence:

F student giving math lessons to others.

]]>
By: porter http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71317 porter Sat, 17 May 2008 16:28:22 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71317 Perhaps you're missing the explicitly stated point: This <em>could</em> become a great reference <em>if</em> people contribute to it. Also, if you've read the Hitchhiker's Guide or even just watched the intro video that's on the project's home page you might understand why the analogy is actually a rather apt one. The point is not that what is there on day one is amazing; it's that it can be made better by the people who use it. If you think it's missing something don't just complain about it. Add it. Of course, I don't disagree with Rick that it would be nice if it were in a somewhat more "neutral" environment, but at least it's out there. Perhaps you’re missing the explicitly stated point: This could become a great reference if people contribute to it. Also, if you’ve read the Hitchhiker’s Guide or even just watched the intro video that’s on the project’s home page you might understand why the analogy is actually a rather apt one.

The point is not that what is there on day one is amazing; it’s that it can be made better by the people who use it. If you think it’s missing something don’t just complain about it. Add it.

Of course, I don’t disagree with Rick that it would be nice if it were in a somewhat more “neutral” environment, but at least it’s out there.

]]>
By: Emtu http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71310 Emtu Fri, 16 May 2008 23:26:13 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71310 Good reference? - Perhaps... But it's clearly incomplete at present. If they claim it to be the HHG of the web, they should perhaps include at least *something* about XHTML as well don't you think? Political play biased towards the Google Chaired alternatives ? - definately seems that way :P Good reference? – Perhaps… But it’s clearly incomplete at present.
If they claim it to be the HHG of the web, they should perhaps include at least *something* about XHTML as well don’t you think?

Political play biased towards the Google Chaired alternatives ? – definately seems that way :P

]]>
By: Vectorpedia(Rick) http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/comment-page-1/#comment-71304 Vectorpedia(Rick) Fri, 16 May 2008 18:37:26 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2008/05/15/googles-encyclop%c3%a6dia-webtannica/#comment-71304 Time will tell if Google's Doctype reference library will succeed although I would prefer to see this on W3.org than on Google.com Time will tell if Google’s Doctype reference library will succeed although I would prefer to see this on W3.org than on Google.com

]]>