By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,226 Members | 1,411 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,226 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

CC/PP: Yet Another W3C Standard

P: n/a
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."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/

.... 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."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-s...ocab-20040115/

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."
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...tro/intro.html

.... and CSS2 ...

"Recognized media types (...)
handheld
Intended for handheld devices (typically small screen, monochrome,
limited bandwidth)."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html

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.

I just don't get it. Explanations welcome.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
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."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/

... 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."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-s...ocab-20040115/

I'd just like to note that the idea is good. HTTP Content Negotiation
can only go so far: languages, types, compression, etc. But CC/PP
allows for so much more that would allow more tailorization. It's based
on RDF, so it's not really a new wheel.

However, if it were me, I'd push for extending CGI. Allow us to get
CLIENT_RESOLUTION, CLIENT_COLOR_DEPTH, XHTML_PROFILES, etc; that would
be far more powerful for scripts.


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."
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...tro/intro.html

... and CSS2 ...

"Recognized media types (...)
handheld
Intended for handheld devices (typically small screen, monochrome,
limited bandwidth)."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html

Baby steps, I suppose. Also, content negotiation, accessibility
guidelines, and CC/PP profiles could work together.

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.


I know, the W3C is a bit schizophrenic. Some of their ideas are good
and the idealistic side of me is a bit excited about a couple of them
being implemented, but the W3C is a tad out of reach of reality.

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
On 16 Jan 2004 16:34:41 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com>
wrote:
... 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."
To be fair on CC/PP (and I don't really feel the need beyond the fact
I've had a couple of beers) it is providing the ability to negotiate
rich content (applications etc.) beyond the simple websites. HTML and
CSS to answer those, but in the application space it's more
complicated.
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.
Where's the fun in that? CC/PP is orthoganal IMO to HTML/CSS etc. -
it's also been around for years, I remember being introduced to
someone on the WG as "This is Jim he thinks CC/PP is awful".
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.


You have a very good argument against XHTML 2.0, I don't think you
have a good argument against CC/PP, SVG, RDF, VoiceXML, SMIL etc.

The W3 doesn't implement much, that's down to the members, you could
wonder about members who sign up to a standard and then don't
implement.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:39:07 +0000, Keith Bowes <do****@spam.me>
wrote:
I'd just like to note that the idea is good. HTTP Content Negotiation
can only go so far: languages, types, compression, etc. But CC/PP
allows for so much more that would allow more tailorization.
It also allows for so much more balkanization, and far from improving
the variety of devices we can support, it makes it possible to simply
"Not support devices" by telling them to reliably get a better a
browser.
It's based on RDF, so it's not really a new wheel.
Is RDF a rec yet?
However, if it were me, I'd push for extending CGI. Allow us to get
CLIENT_RESOLUTION, CLIENT_COLOR_DEPTH, XHTML_PROFILES, etc; that would
be far more powerful for scripts.


It would also reveal personal information to user agents (the fact I'm
running an IBM PC R40 at 200x100pixels suggests I have certain vision
issues doesn't it?)

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.