Mark Pilgrim is peeved after examining the XHTML 2.0 specification. He writes:
I bought into every argument the W3C made that keeping up with standards, validating, and using semantic markup now would somehow “future-proof” my site and provide some mystical “forward compatibility”. How about some fucking payoff now? How about some fucking compatibility?
Standards are bullshit. XHTML is a crock. The W3C is irrelevant.
I don't know if I'd quite phrase it as Mark, but I think he has a right to take umbrage. I'm scratching my head on some of these and asking why? I think the first expert that explains these changes with the Semantic Web should be shot. (In effigy of course.) It's times like this I feel like the W3C is my mother making me eat my vegtables.
Scott Andrew comments No one is going to deploy this beast. The architecture astronauts have done their work, abstracting it to the point of absurdity. So what?
He continues For 2.0 to survive, it has to be rethought, renamed, or retired. But please. Standards aren't bullshit.
Joe Gregorio is right when he says ...he shouldn't complain too loudly lest he get drafted as a technical expert by the committee.
I'll vote for Mark. W3C specifications are rather dry -- they could use some sarcasm and four letter words.
Leave a comment