Comment by isodev
3 months ago
I love the little historical overview in the post. With more than 25 years of hindsight, the push against user-centred standards is so obvious. W3C is always better than whatever coolaid-du-jour big corps wants you to drink because (at the very least), someone actually thinks "how is this going to affect people using it" as opposed to Google/Apple's approach "How is this going to affect our revenue".
To be honest, in my recollection, in 2013 what the W3C was doing was actually seen as user hostile and HTML5 was seen as a good thing for users.
Part of the community really hated XHTML and its strictness. I remember Mozilla being at the vanguard then rather than Google.
I think the situation was and is a lot more messy and complicated than what the article presents but presenting it fully would make for a less compelling narrative.
As is I don’t really buy it personally.
Hostile actions would be IE’s strategy for monopolizing browser in 90s and Google paying Apple and Mozilla to monopolize search starting in 2004, killing off Reader in 2013.
Taking over standards groups is a gray area with tradeoffs. It helped Google preserve monopoly in search but clearly devs and the web benefited as well.
XHTML2 was panned because it was super strict without clear benefits. Keeping HTML backwards compatible is clearly a very good thing. I don’t fully understand the author’s passion for XSLT- it’s cumbersome and it wasn’t popular with devs.
I agree with the headline and some aspects but XML is a bad hill to die on and much of the writing is hyperbolic and more than a little out of touch.
I do agree reality was a lot more messy, but i also think it still paints a compelling case that Google in particular acted how it did (mostly) to shape the web to its own best interests.
That it wasn't literally "Google railroaded WHATWG/W3C/everyone else to get what it wanted" doesn't mean Google didn't take advantage of the situation to kill open web standards to its own benefit. I imagine Mozilla, for instance, went along with as much as they did because Google accounted for most of their revenue.
I've been there at the time, and the pushback against XHTML always struck me as disingenuous. XHTML was not at all difficult to write! The only real argument against it was that it wasn't always valid HTML, and browsers didn't want to support it specifically, so when people published XHTML pages it would sometimes break if the browser tried to interpret it as HTML. But they have broken HTML backwards compatibility so much worse many times since then...
> Part of the community really hated XHTML and its strictness.
A big part of this is that people were concatenating XML together manually, to predictable disaster.
Nowadays they use JSX and TypeScript, far more strict than XML ever was, and absolutely love it.
> Nowadays they use JSX and TypeScript
And we're already moving away from that, landing us into HTMX/hypermedia and other fancy tools which aren't really concerned with JSX. So things come and go, but standards stay to keep things working and options available for people with different constraints. It's not up to Google to be deciding all that just by themselves.
Nobody pays for anything with user centric standards. If software were free to produce and services were free to run this would work, but it doesn’t. Software in particular is incredibly time consuming and expensive, especially if you want to make it usable.
> Nobody pays for anything with user centric standards.
??? Why do you think this?
Do people buy chat apps? Web browsers? Web servers? Web content? Clients or servers for other open standards?
No, which means you’ll never see them get the level of polish or investment that closed stuff gets. Because when it’s closed you can make people pay or monetize it with advertising.
I’m not cheering for this. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m pointing out why things are this way.
A major problem is that while free software efforts can build working software, it often takes orders of magnitude more work to make software mere mortals can use. That kind of UI/UX polish is also the work programmers hate doing, so you have to pay them to do it. Therefore closed stuff always wins on UI/UX. That means it always takes the network effect. UX polish is the moat that free has never been able to cross.
15 replies →
People definitely do pay for it when it's available, even more at the core of this issue is that people would prefer alternatives that are open, where their data can be easily ported to some competitor service if it's better which directly affects the bottomline from companies that push against open standards.
I think you got it clearly reversed in your mind...
They prefer it but they don’t pay for it.
2 replies →