

W3c - an embarrassment for front-end - onderhond
http://www.onderhond.com/blog/work/w3c-embarrassment-for-front-end

======
nsfmc
_“How unreasonable is it to demand a certain degree of professionalism from
the w3c? All I want is to point people to the w3c when they have any
intentions of finding out more about html, css, javascript, accessibility or
whatever other front-end related topic, without feeling embarrassed to do so
or without putting those people off before they even started?”_

So the problem is that the w3c is obtuse and hard to use as a lay person, but
also that their most recent moves to improve their image do nothing for
improving the author's sales pitch for standards-based web technologies,
which, let's be honest, is not really their job[1]

To be fair, the w3c is a bit obtuse, but it's also not an educational outreach
organization, it's a standards body that makes _recommendations_ (and the
recommendations are actually targeted towards browser implementers first, and
end-users second). I don't think the author or his clients are really their
target audience.

[1]: <http://www.w3.org/Help/#compliant>

~~~
earnubs
I agree with you, the W3C mainly wrote specifications for implementors (which
is why as a front end person you must read the spec and 'read' the
implementation of it in the browser) and the role of talking to authors was
left to those who write books. But the W3C has made efforts with the HTML5
specs to speak directly to web authors [1] and is now engaged in this badge
outreach. So, while I find most of the original post to be a bit garbled and
unfocused I think that if the W3C is now going to be speaking to authors it
does need a little bit of a tidy up, perhaps a small garden of documents for
authors that easily navigable with some more verbose explanations of what and
where these documents sit in the master plan. Also a little bit of history
wouldn't go amiss, the W3C didn't write the HTML5 spec, it co-opted it from
the WHATWG after admitting that XHML2 wasn't going to fly. I think it's
important to understand the history and understand the relationship between
bodies like the W3C and WHATWG etc, browsers vendors and the author. The W3C
has it's place, but it's not as important as most authors think it to be.

[1] <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/>

~~~
onderhond
Whatever the w3c would like to be, there is a different reality, namely what
people perceive them to be. Client, back-end programmers and other non-front-
end people alike look to the w3c when it comes to front-end. And seeing
they've just launched a community site built around a silly logo, I'm sure
they are a tad more than a simple standards body.

If they are not happy with their public image, it's up to them to make it
clear (and not through a few paragraphs on their oh-so-usable site).

------
antihero
What a miserable, pointlessly negative article. It's not a terrible site, it's
not up to you to judge their casual approach, and it's not like you're paying
them money. Why didn't you spend the time writing this article running around
a park or even coding websites?

Lighten up, man.

~~~
wlievens
Most of Antwerp's parks are a bit disappointing for such an otherwise
marvellous city, I'm afraid.

------
steveklabnik
Yellow text on brown: an embarrassment for front-end.

For slightly more serious critique, the only mention of 'video' is in the
heading that says 'HTML5 Video.' The author misunderstands non-profit
organizations as a place where people don't get paid. The assertion that 'the
general perception of the logo is less than positive' is made with no numbers
backing it up. Many dislike it, but many also like it. And complaining about
CSS3 being part of 'HTML5' is the worst kind of pedantry.

~~~
onderhond
It's quite funny to criticize a html-guy on worrying about semantics ...
seriously, it's the core of html and the core of my every day job.

If you want a more detailed explanation, check the "sad semantics" section
here: <http://www.onderhond.com/blog/work/html5-meet-world-irony>

~~~
steveklabnik
Seriously, I'm an "HTML guy" too. But you're missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, in an idealized world, "HTML5+CSS3+JS" would be a more accurate name, but
I wouldn't care if it was called Jesus Christ if that's what made people
actually want and adopt web standards.

See your comment above about 'the way that they are' and 'the way that people
perceive them to be,' and apply it to HTML5 itself rather than the WHATWG.

------
mithaler
Can someone please explain to me whom exactly it harms to use "HTML5" as an
umbrella term for new tags, CSS3 and new Javascript features?

I mean, many of those tags aren't even useful without hooks to manipulate
them. What's the point of a <canvas> when you don't have JS bindings to draw
on it?

~~~
rimantas
What do you do, when you need to talk about _the_ HTML5, not about it and
related stuff? <canvas>, as important as it is, is only a piece of HTML5
markup additions.

------
sid0
The sort of people who take issue when CSS3 is included in HTML5 are the same
sort of people who'd whine about less vs fewer, or pounce on someone for not
using the subjunctive case for a counterfactual. There is no place for
dogmatic prescriptivism in rational discourse.

As an aside, I really like the HTML5 logo.

