>>>>>>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.


The MS OS and Office are poor examples of adherence to standards because those products are driven by marketing, not ISO standards. Not that Bill doesn't like to attempt to influence or set ISO standards to help his hegemoney, but he isn't known for playing fair.

Folks that write to standards follow them back to the International Standards Organization, the ISO. HTML 4.0, for example, can be traced through the W3C to http://www.iso.ch and the [ISO8870] standard, IIRC. The ISO standards are VERY precise, and folks who do not follow them or claim 'confusion' usually have ulterior motives. Standards can have errors in them too, but for the sake of standardization itself, in the interests of maintaining communication via the standard, users will even code into their websites the errors in the standard. That way everyone "speaks the same language", errors and all. It is only because some want to leverage market advantages that they don't adhere to standards. Remember the old Unix wars? It was like each bank printing its own money. Driven by excessive greed and lack of community spirit, they each followed their own 'standard', trying for customer lock-ins, which opened up an opportunity for a young man to wedge a new, simple, low priced OS into the gaps.
That young man has avoided 'standards wars' by monopolizing competition out. But now, even he advertizes against his own products. It was amazing to see... selling W2K by decrying how unstable and buggy Win9X was. Because of that monopoly, and the decline in new PC sales, Bill has to churn the customer base for new license fees by deliberately making new data formats unreadable by previous versions. Talk about a lack of standards. In the absence of standards the only substitute is a monoculture, but that kills diversity and innovation, and increases susceptibility to single agent destruction.

Balkanization is no way to get business done. Or, like countries such as Nigera, where villages 1, 2 or 3 kilometers apart cannot speak to each other because of a lack of a common language. It is what keeps their country weak, divided and its citizens at constant war with one another.