Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> HTML5 is not W3C.

Even worse. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It's a piece of software (or hardware, if we are technical).

It is, technically, the inverse of a modem. A modem takes a digital signal 
and modulates/demodulates it to make it analog. A codec takes an analog 
signal and codes/decodes it to make it digital. Hence, it's not the 
standard, but the device or process of following the standards.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> And when it's a piece of hardware, it most probably is a piece on
>> software on that hardware ;-).
> 
>   With simpler codecs it could be hardwired, so no software.

The old "voice scramblers" were that way: a comb filter to select out a 
bunch of frequencies, frequency shiufters to move them around, and then 
something to combine them up again.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

>> the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a 
>> nightmare.
> 
> In part because W3C has a broken standards process that fails to account 
> for how the world actually works.

Care to explain that one?

(I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the specs.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> If you said "nothing becomes an official web standard until three 
> browsers implement it identically", you by definition wouldn't have this 
> problem.

You also by definition wouldn't have any standards in the first place, 
because nobody would ever implement anything even slightly similarly.

> When's the last time you said "My ftp server won't talk to your FTP 
> client"? Why? Because there were several interoperative implementations 
> *before* it was a standard.

Have you *seen* the FTP spec? Sure it works, but it's _horrible_! >_<

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You also by definition wouldn't have any standards in the first place, 
> because nobody would ever implement anything even slightly similarly.

Not true. Look at the IETF spec process.  There are proposed standards that 
just don't become standards until several people have implemented it 
similarly enough that they interoperate in all the ways required by the spec.

W3C looks at what's going on, says "this would be a better way, so everyone 
should change how they work things."

> Have you *seen* the FTP spec? Sure it works, but it's _horrible_! >_<

It's actually not too bad, overall. And it has evolved over time. It's *way* 
better than HTTP for example.

Even so, put it this way: How many browsers can't get to the web server 
(HTTP, an IETF standard), compared to the number of browsers that render the 
page incorrectly (HTML, a W3C standard)?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a 
>>> nightmare.
>>
>> In part because W3C has a broken standards process that fails to 
>> account for how the world actually works.
> 
> Care to explain that one?

They make stuff up, and then try to claim it's the standard. It's broken 
because there's no good reason for browsers that have already implemented 
things differently than what W3C later standardizes on to change.

> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the specs.)

Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or will 
follow those specs?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> When's the last time you said "My ftp server won't talk to your FTP 
> client"? Why? Because there were several interoperative implementations 
> *before* it was a standard.  Sure, sometimes you get a mess like email 
> address parsing, but that's the price you pay for interoperability.
> 

On a related side note.. Wish the twits would standardize all their 
bloody download redirects, which they now all seem to bloody use, for no 
apparent reason, on 90% of the sites which plugins/programs that attempt 
to help download, or redirect to a more reliable manager, or just do 
anything beyond passing the file to the browsers ftp/http file transfer 
system. A few have mangled things so badly you can't even *get* a file 
from them if you have something installed, about 50% of them you can't 
use the normal "just click", or wait for their page to script load it, 
because it triggers a set of events in things like FlashGot, which 
results in the download not even starting, and then, in about 20% of 
cases, and this "never" happened until the last 1-2 years, you get the 
file downloaded, but the "name" passed to the downloader is wrong. I.e., 
you end up with something like:

local name	source
get.php		www.somefileserver.dum/files/realname.zip

Part of this is the fault of the manager, mind you, which doesn't check 
to make sure the destination name and the source are the same, but 
seriously.. This isn't being done, as near as I can tell, to undermine 
download managers or plugins, its designed to help the site track who is 
downloading, in most cases, and its getting continuously worse over 
time. And if it was an issue with trying to stop things like getright, 
why not make a client with "most" of the same features, provide some 
standard way to say, "This can't be downloaded via multiple 
connections.", which is usually the problem they are trying to stop, or 
just *leave out* that feature, and make it work with every damn site? 
Problem solved. Instead you have unreliable managers in the browsers, 
which can and *have* failed to properly download a file on me, resume, 
if they even do that, unreliably, can't keep running if you close the 
browser, and provide "no" other features at all, including warning you 
of non-unique names, or redirecting specific file types to specific 
folders, or anything else that a real manager provides.

File transfers that don't involve a bare client, or bittorrent, are 
becoming increasingly stupid and unusable.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the 
>> specs.)
> 
> Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or will 
> follow those specs?

So what you're saying is that we should let somebody make up some 
mangled mess of a system, and then stamp it as a "standard", rather than 
designing something properly?

Stuff like making something like Flash a standard rather than designing 
SVG? And the single proprietry implementation should be the standard spec?

Isn't that exactly why everybody's so upset with the MS document "standard"?

(Not that your claims are unfounded - AFAIK, nobody has implemented the 
CSS3 drop shadow properties, for example. But then, that's a fairly 
dubious feature in the first place...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the 
>>> specs.)
>>
>> Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or 
>> will follow those specs?
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should let somebody make up some 
> mangled mess of a system, and then stamp it as a "standard", rather than 
> designing something properly?

No. I'm saying that if you're going to standardize something, you should 
either standardize what people are already doing, or standardize what people 
aren't yet doing, rather than trying to "standardize" what people are 
already doing but in a different way.

And when you're trying to standardize communication mechanisms, you should 
probably strive to ensure interoperability, given that it's, you know, 
communication and all that.

> Stuff like making something like Flash a standard rather than designing 
> SVG? And the single proprietry implementation should be the standard spec?
> 
> Isn't that exactly why everybody's so upset with the MS document 
> "standard"?

You obviously missed the part where I mentions "multiple inteoperating 
implementations available to the public", right?

> (Not that your claims are unfounded - AFAIK, nobody has implemented the 
> CSS3 drop shadow properties, for example. But then, that's a fairly 
> dubious feature in the first place...)

That's exactly my point. Nobody follows the standard because they're 
prescriptive and made up out of whole cloth.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message