>>>>>Hilmar,
>>>>>You should read this site, especially point #4
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/20011101.html
>>>>>
>>>>>JLK
>>>>
>>>>That's an interesting article. I am sure Michel isn't involved in this plot, but it would be interesting, all the same, to check the UT against validator.w3.org. While I don't develop Web pages, it seems that some of the corrections suggested are actually quite easy to implement.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, I'll put this on the Task List right now.
>>>>
>>>>Hilmar.
>>>
>>>I don't believe for a second that Michel is envolved either. But, it's hard to create a W#C compliant web page when the tools you use are designed not to be complient by utilizing platform dependent controls, etc...
>>
>>Oh, well, I didn't think about that. Probably includes some tools from Microsoft. OTOH, it DOES cost some additional work to ensure cross-platform compatibility.
>
>Not really. That's what the W3C standards are for. Just following those standards is easier than breaking them with 3rd party functionality, deliberately designed to embrace, extend and extinquish compilant applications. Easier because 3rd party tools are well known for producing "upgrades" with builtin incompatibilities designed to force the consumer to follow by rendering previous apps unreadable with the new release, and simulataneously shutting down sales and support of the previous release. For example, while designing a webpage with FrontPage may be easier, it locks one into the WinXX platform and the never-ending upgrade treadmill. If one used an HTML editor that designed W3C compliant pages, like Quanta+, that problem is never encountered, nor is the expense.
>JLK

Jerry,

Even with standards you can easily end up with differences though. Way back in the day, when IBM reigned supreme, even their own standards weren't "followed". Yet in fact they were - but with different interpretations/understandings.
English is well known for its lack of precision. When you have a large (in terms of lots of explanatory writing) standard then even 2 or 3 mis-interpretations can lead to variances that confound the user.

Look at MS Office. Even within the same product (i.e. Word) you will find dialogues that look different and that require different ways to confirm and/or close them. Yet I'd bet there was a standard written for these to all be similar, what with that being major design objective of the entire suite.

All in all I'd say that standards are generally helpful (when applied without other objectives) BUT still have a way to go before we get the results we expect from them.
Not disagreeing with your stance, but just adding to it.