Along the same lines of the XHTML Basic DTD argument ...
“HTML 4 is a powerful language for authoring Web content, but its design does not take into consideration issues pertinent to small devices, including the implementation cost (in power, memory, etc.) of the full feature set. Consumer devices with limited resources cannot generally afford to implement the full feature set of HTML 4. Requiring a full-fledged computer for access to the World Wide Web excludes a large portion of the population from consumer device access of online information and services.”
– XHTML Basic Recommendation at W3C
... goes the new CC/PP recommendation...
“As the number and variety of devices connected to the Internet grows, there is a corresponding increase in the need to deliver content that is tailored to the capabilities of different devices. Some limited techniques, such as HTTP ’accept’ headers and HTML ’alt=’ attributes, already exist.”
– CC/PP Recommendation at W3C
OK, so let’s take a look back at HTML4.0...
“HTML has been developed with the vision that all manner of devices should be able to use information on the Web: PCs with graphics displays of varying resolution and color depths, cellular telephones, hand held devices, devices for speech for output and input, computers with high or low bandwidth, and so on.”
– HTML4.0 Recommendation at W3C
... and CSS2 ...
“Recognized media types (...)
Intended for handheld devices (typically small screen, monochrome, limited bandwidth).”
– CSS2 Recommendation at W3C
Maybe the W3C should just close their doors, leave the website as it is, and stop creating new recommendations until the old ones are implemented correctly. They might even spend some time on a new site which is just about pushing their older recommendations and explaining them to non-technical people. Because believe it or not, I don’t have any problem to browse Strict pages with my hand phone, and – as opposed to the W3C itself – still believe in their original idea.
The problem lies not within the idea or conception of HTML (which admitted is not flawless). The problem is the popular implementation of HTML found on the Web today. Nothing about any new W3C standards is telling me their implementation will be any better. And if the W3C wants to be taken seriously, they better believe in what they were pushing yesterday, or we might not believe it when they are pushing something in the future.
SERPs means “Search Engine Result Pages”. And that’s just where the battle for the #1 ranking for search keyword “SERPs” will take place: at Google.com’s result pages. The competition started today and will end on 16th February 2004, as announced in the newsgroup alt.internet.search-engines (“Race to #1 Using the Keyword ’SERPs’”). The current lead is taken by a PageRank-6 (non-participating) Webmasterworld.com forum entry. Whoever is on top of the search result one month from now when you enter “SERPs” wins and proved to be the best SEO (Search Engine Optimizer) out there.
You can register for the SERPs competition at www.koivi.com/serps.php or the recent waf.rangenet.com/sites/seo/ (which is buggy at the moment)
Google had a special Mars logo yesterday. I must have missed it.
>> More posts