The second part of DevEdge’s interview with Mike Davidson of ESPN.com is up, and we would like to modify our earlier comments about his not saying anything particularly controversial. He says at one point (and surely this is going to be the touchstone quote for most):
Then there's validation. Telling me my site needs to validate in order to be standards-compliant is like telling me I need a flag in my lawn to call myself an American.Something seems wrong about that, and it’s not just the easy but inaccurate metaphor for patriotism. “Standards compliance” is a definable situation, viz., compliance with the standards. If your site mostly validates, it is no more standards compliant than if it only slightly does. It does implement standards, but the situation is rather circular. Being an American, to the extent we focus on the definable part of that situation, is clearly defined in the US Legal Code, and we suspect that nowhere in there does it mention planting a flag on your lawn or even owning one (lawn or flag, take your pick). Anyone who claims otherwise is engaging in a very personal, idiosyncratic, and prejudiced means of defining American.
But “standards compliance” is a narrow-tolerance thing. Whether in the web or the physical world, standards exist as codified rules within which there is a certain amount, usually also codified, of wiggle room. The W3C validator allows for that wiggle room. If your site does not validate, you are not standards-compliant. If you manufacture screws and the thread dimensions differ from the ISO standards beyond the allowed tolerance, your screws are not compliant. They may be the best screws in the world, but they are not standards-compliant.
To extend a comment from above, a noncompliant site does not mean that you are against web standards or that your site does not follow certain of the standards. But if your DTD is XHTML strict and you use even one FONT element, you are not compliant. We applaud ESPN.com for converting their site to mostly standards-compliant markup, and we rue the confusion around web standards that would lead someone to think that those of us who are pro standards and strictly so might liken a noncompliant site to a traitor to his/her country.
News from the Browser Front
Mozilla has released two things recently, one fairly routine and one new and different. The routine thing is the alpha build of the 1.4 version of the browser suite. The other is a new development roadmap that contains as its primary theme that the browser suite is getting too big. Future development is going to concentrate on developing components that will proceed at their own paces. This will enable the project to be more agile and push the capabilities of the rendering engine further. Translated, it would seem to mean that they recognized that development on certain parts of Mozilla was slowing down progress on other parts.
Leaving the Rat Race
Folks, We’ve had enough. After years of (mostly) working for dehumanizing corporations ruled by faceless bureaucracy and baseless policies, after years of stewing in a country that doesn’t seem to want our kind any more, We’ve decided to opt out. While it’s a pretty big change, even for us, We think it’s going to be the best thing.
We’ve discussed it with the S.O., and she and your humble scribe are moving to Rome. She figures she can get a job teaching English, and once our Italian gets a little better, we figure we can too. Until that point, there’s bound to be good opportunities for someone of our experience. The Italians use computers, don’t they?
Since she graduates in May and finishes up working in June, we’ll probably leave then or soon after. We’ve already given our two weeks’ notice at work and are going to go on a farewell tour by automobile of these great United States immediately after, so let your friends in Dubuque know that we’re coming to town.
Until then, have a happy April first.
Update: This was timely, but Blogger had a “serious hardware failure” earlier today.