> What about disabling JavaScript (which makes some sites simply not work) or cookies (idem)? Now I think there are many things mixed up here. The problem is not to develop new stuff but to change the ones that was designed by someone else. When a web site promise you to provide a HTML page it should also promise the freedom you to choose which operating system and which browser you want to see it's content - that's part of the freedom of the Internet. This, however, only possible if web site developers keep standards. Standards that can be followed by anyone and which is not propriatery. It means an HTML contains nothing more than those element that are defined the w3c comitee. As soon as they brake this - introducing new elements or attributes or what not -, then that page is NOT HTML any more. Same as a Word Document - if OpenOffice starts putting special formatting on a Word Doc format that cannot be opened up by Microsoft Office, then that document is not a Word Doc formatted any more. But as the Microsoft has the dominance on the market, you will say OpenOffice is bad - however, if Microsoft brakes the HTML standard, as again, MS has the dominance, you will say the HTML page is Internet Explorer compatible... Can you hear the difference? If you remember Microsoft also broke the language standard of Java - Sun had to fight against MS to stop saying that they use Java, as that were not. Unfortunately Microsoft has this attitude to brake things and then expect everyone to follow them - instead of proposing their views or ideas to comitees as change the stanrads democratically. Tamas On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > Peter wrote: > > >> So you would be good with those in power (whoever and wherever they > >> may be) selecting the "Microsoft way" as the official and legal > >> standard? > > > > Uhh. The standards I had in mind were testing standards > > (accessibility and usability), not how exactly the sites are made. > > That is the point, i.e. if it is called html then it should pass the > > test of a html syntax checker like that from w3c (who make and keep > > the standard). > > The HTML standard is not static. What we know as HTML has been evolving > over time -- and that was mostly not driven by w3c, but by the > implementations. Given a law that no site may present anything that's > not compatible with the w3c checker, there wouldn't have been much if > any development. > > The development that would have been would have been driven by > government committees, pressures by industry lobbies etc. You don't > really think that the w3c would be the same w3c if it had the power to > define what is legal on the www? > > Also, think about defining the boundaries. Would it be legal to have > something non-w3c compliant on my private LAN? On a company LAN? On the > internet, but over VPN? On the internet, but protected by a password? > Would it only apply to www subdomains (www.yourdomain.tld) or also to > standard domains (yourdomain.tld)? Would I be allowed to share > experimental non-compliant code with coworkers or friends on non-www > subdomains (trythis.mydomain.tld)? Or even on www subdomains, paying for > an exceptional experimental license? > > Who would define how stuff should look like on the browser end? After > all, all the HTML definitions aren't worth a thing if the browser > creates crappy renderings from perfectly legal HTML. Would text-only > browsers even be allowed still? Would it be allowed to hack > (client-side) silly pages that restrict the rendering to 640x400 pixels > so that they fill the browser client area, or would this be illegal > under the millenium act (which definitely would be involved here)? Would > it be allowed to change the default font? Or the default screen > resolution (which messes up the rendering on some pages)? What about > disabling JavaScript (which makes some sites simply not work) or cookies > (idem)? > > You're sure you want to go there? The questions I brought up are what a > non-lawyer mind can bring up in a minute or so. Think about what ten > lawyer minds can bring up in a year... (that's the minimum that would be > working on such a draft :) > > If you think it's too much ruled by Microsoft right now, and think that > having the government regulate it would be better, I think you gotta > think again. I think chances are that if this were the case, the primary > result would be that all browsers would have to be IE compliant at all > times :) > > Gerhard > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- Rudonix DoubleSaver http://www.rudonix.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist