Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jeff Jaffe Named CEO of W3C

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-price-standards dept.

GNU is Not Unix 145

blozza2070 notes the news that Jeff Jaffe has been appointed CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium. Until January Jaffe was CTO at Novell and, while his name hasn't come up very often in this community, he is one of the architects of the Novell-Microsoft patent deal. A reading of Jaffe's blog while at Novell tends to paint him as a software patent supporter, Microsoft apologist, and no fan of the FSF. This strongly worded page at Boycott Novell features copious links to support the above characterization.

cancel ×

145 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mixed Feelings (2, Interesting)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420594)

I have mixed feelings on this. While it's true that he does appear to be fairly biased against the FSF's philosophy, at the same time he also has good diplomatic relations with Microsoft (this could be a good thing). The reason why this could be a good thing is that hopefully (and this is a big hopefully) it will allow w3c to influence Microsoft more when it comes to adhering to web standards in IE.
Obviously this can go the other way as well, with IE imposing its standards onto w3c, and forcing the spec itself to change/adapt. Pray to RMS that it goes the way of the former.

Nothing good ever came out of having (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420622)

good relations with microsoft. neither for their partners, nor their consumers.

and if ie imposes its own standards to w3c, we developers are going to ignore their standards. its simple as that.

Re:Nothing good ever came out of having (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420658)

There is always the WHATWG.

Why the (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420932)

Fuck do you split your thoughts between the subject and the post?

I agree it's a (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421824)

bit annoying, isn't it?

The title isn't supposed to be the beginning of replies.

I know I've done it myself, but I won't do it anymore.

Fuck your groupthink enforcement, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422582)

you fucking Nazi!

Re:Nothing good ever came out of having (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421078)

What a bunch of crap. Developers don't disregard standards just because they came from Microsoft. Hopefully nothing ridiculous will become a *standard*, but if it does, developers should boycott it because it's stupid and not who it came from. And if Microsoft comes up with a great idea (ahem, XmlHttp/AJAX?), maybe it *should* become a standard because it's a good idea? Oh but if Microsoft came up with it, we should ignore it... can't have that...

The problem isn't necessarily "Microsoft standards", it's people not following standards (which Microsoft has been quite guilty of, no argument there).

If things become standards, and people start just ignoring them and doing their own thing (again, as Microsoft has done in the past) how are they any better than Microsoft was and how does that avoid the whole non-standardized web mess again?

Answer: it doesn't, and we end up with a mess. Not everything that becomes a standard is going to please everyone, but good communication with the big players is important so that sound ideas become standards (no matter who comes up with the ideas), and that people agree to follow those standards so technologies can play along with each other.

Re:Nothing good ever came out of having (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421834)

I think what he meant is that if Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome all support one way to add a new feature and IE decides to support it in a different way, the W3C shouldn't make the IE way the standard one.

Talking about that, where's Opera's support for box-shadow and border-radius? They're at version 10 for crying out loud.

Re:Nothing good ever came out of having (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422596)

I'm not sure I agree with that principle. If they were absolutely equivalent, I'd go with the oldest one, even if it's IE. If they're not absolutely equivalent, I'd go on the basis of technical merit without reference to who implemented it first.

Re:Mixed Feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421352)

It's not very likely he will push IE "standards" on W3C, since IE doesn't actually have any "standards." What are we afraid of? That he'll roll back the existing features IE doesn't support? Not likely. And I doubt he will make ActiveX standard (or if he did, no one would support it within the organization). I doubt he thinks that "has layout" is a good thing for everyone to support in CSS either.

Re:Nothing good ever came out of having (4, Insightful)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421368)

we developers are going to ignore their standards. its simple as that.

Bravo! Well said! In support of this stance, I'll be happy to take care of any of your clients that are foolish enough to want their websites to look and function similarly across all major browsers. Viva la revolucion!

Re:Nothing good ever came out of having (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422668)

I'll be happy to take care of any of your clients that are foolish enough to want their websites to look and function similarly across all major browsers. Viva la revolucion!

and what of the client who wants to differentiate his site by offering tech that has emerged and evolved outside the standards, like Flash?

the wheels of the gods grind slowly.

there is nothing to stop some new or unexpected entrant - from unleashing the next must-have plug-in.

the plug-in that is well on its way to 98% penetration of the market before the standards committee can nail down proposals that first saw the light of day over five to ten years ago.
 

Agreed. (1)

Asaf.Zamir (1053470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31423832)

As a developer I shall not set hand at those none FSF standards.

Re:Mixed Feelings (2, Insightful)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420668)

it will allow w3c to influence Microsoft more

Or do you mean allow Microsoft to influence W3C more?

Re:Mixed Feelings (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420912)

Can I get a +5, Insightful for repeating part of the parent post, too? Dude, he already said that. Right here:

Obviously this can go the other way as well, with IE imposing its standards onto w3c . . .

Re:Mixed Feelings (0, Troll)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421120)

Can I get a +5, Insightful for repeating part of the parent post, too? Dude, he already said that.

Wow, you're right, sorry, I didn't read the whole post before I commented...but...this is slashdot, isn't that a requirement for posting? Who actually reads articles? /. is a forum for half-baked, half-assed opinionated remarks written solely for the purpose of starting flame wars. At least that is what I was told when I signed up years ago.

Re:Mixed Feelings (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421346)

Can I get a +5, Insightful for repeating part of the parent post, too? Dude, he already said that.

Wow, you're right, sorry, I didn't read the whole post before I commented...but...this is slashdot, isn't that a requirement for posting? Who actually reads articles? /. is a forum for half-baked, half-assed opinionated remarks written solely for the purpose of starting flame wars. At least that is what I was told when I signed up years ago.

I don't think the AC was blaming you for writing that. I think he was blaming the moderators for promoting it. You probably didn't read the article or the summary, and yes that is rather typical around here since people are generally more concerned about comment visibility than they are about things like readability, useful non-redundant contributions, or factual accuracy. Style over substance is highly prized in superficial societies and all of that. But it's expected that moderators shouldn't be in such a hurry and should do a better job of considering whether something really deserves one of their limited points.

I think that AC successfully trolled you without even intending to. You might or might not have a sense of humor that finds amusement in that, but I do.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421848)

Okay, that's all well and good, but even with your arguments I still think that Mario is better than Sonic.

ISO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421322)

2 bad.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31423770)

it will allow w3c to influence Microsoft more

Or do you mean allow Microsoft to influence W3C more?

The Sphinx: To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

The Sphinx: He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

The Sphinx: When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.

Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...
The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...
Mr. Furious: ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?
The Sphinx: Not necessarily.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

gehrehmee (16338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420782)

As long as Microsoft had a decent standard, that could be implemented without patent/IP-rights, I don't even care that much. A workable standard people follow is better that a perfect standard that 70% of deployed browser instances promptly ignore.

Re:Mixed Feelings (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420814)

But the problem is, they rarely do. Generally Microsoft's ideas start out just fine, then they play the patent card, extend features and end up with a product radically different than their specifications. The problem isn't that Microsoft is making the standards, it is just because in recent years Microsoft hasn't made a single, decent, workable standard without playing the patent card.

Re:Mixed Feelings (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421454)

But the problem is, they rarely do. Generally Microsoft's ideas start out just fine, then they play the patent card, extend features and end up with a product radically different than their specifications. The problem isn't that Microsoft is making the standards, it is just because in recent years Microsoft hasn't made a single, decent, workable standard without playing the patent card.

Agreed. It's not an issue of acceptability of standards. Microsoft has lots of talented employees to whom it could assign that task. It's an issue of trust. Time and again, this company has proven that it will act in its own interests (which is acceptable from a corporation) to the detriment of everyone else's interests (which is not acceptable from anyone).

Meanwhile, it has given few or no examples of honoring the purpose of open standards. There's simply no reason whatsoever to believe that this time they really intend to play fair and be honest, and by that I mean the-truth-and-the-whole-truth honesty. It's an amazing example of collective stupidity and/or a collective short memory that anyone even pretends this is a question. It might be comedic if it didn't cause so many complications for so many people.

Naturally Microsoft doesn't have to bear the cost of those complications. When it decided long ago that IE would not follow standards very well, this forced many Web developers to expend a great deal of extra effort to handle IE's incompatibilities. Let X equal the amount of time and effort it would take to design such a Web site for a single universal standard to which all browsers adhere. Let Y equal the (larger) amount of time and effort it took to design such a Web site that handles IE's intentional incompatibilities. Do you think Microsoft has ever had to pay for Y - X? In principle this makes them a lot like spammers, not in the sense that MS sends tons of unsolicited e-mails, but in the sense that others have to bear the cost of their marketing.

Re:Mixed Feelings (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422550)

Irrelevant because it's not Microsoft, it's Jeff Jaffe.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31423156)

99.999% Agreed.

The 0.001 difference means I don't believe that part about microsoft not being responsible for spam. 99% of all spam comes from botnets. Botnets are only possible because of their shitty, intentionally insecure operating system. They have to keep their friends at norton and similar companies in business, and they need their users to desperately buy the new version whenever it rolls out in a stupid attempt to finally make their computers stable and secure. So, they keep their OS insecure ON PURPOSE. And that's responsible for 99% of SPAM, malware, DDoS attacks, and other crap on the intertubes.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31423124)

Not only the patent card. You know how things work at m$. They are huge, and they extend everywhere. They spoke about .net for about 5 year before finally deciding what the fuck it was exactly. So, they said It's going to be a ripp off of Java. Then they said fuck it! It'll be Basic. And then they fucked up C, and made C#. Nop, sorry, It'll be Ada, and it'll be called Ada#. They managed to get their fingers on things like Gnome, and prompted Gtk# through the shadows. Don't mind the man behind the curtain. In another 2 years, Gnome will most probably be totally compromised by Mono. We have lots of Free Software written in Mono, all completely compromised.

Look at the ooxml fiasco. At Novell.

Oh, I do I really need to explain this all over again? We all know microsoft guys. We are grown ups. And we've grown up watching m$ screw us up over and over and over. They might pretend to be playing nice for a while, but it's just another strategy. When they get a chance, they'll turn over and fuck us in the ass.

They REALLY want to dominate the market. Most company's goals include making money and getting bigger. m$ is past that stage. It's as big as it'll ever be, and they are making as much money as can be possibly made off this industry. The whole fucking world is using their shitty OS. They've already won. So, what i their goal now? Taking over fucking everything. They don't want to be the most successful company in the industry, they want to be the ONLY ONE.

Strange, the only winning move is not to play [with microsoft].

Re:Mixed Feelings (2, Insightful)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421272)

I always laugh when someone thinks they're going to influence Microsoft, rather than the other way around. Ain't gonna happen.

Re:Mixed Feelings (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421466)

A good thing for Microsoft maybe. Expect the W3C to start saying the IE way is the standard anyday now.

Re:Mixed Feelings (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422378)

Expect the W3C to start saying the IE way is the standard anyday now.

Well it is the de facto standard anyway, so this could only be a good thing. As a developer it's a real pain to have to accommodate all those people using non-standard browsers like Opera and Firefox.

I really don't know why everyone is so upset that a guy with real experience and a commitment to corporate empowerment has been appointed to this job. Typical leftist whining methinks.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422308)

Oh dear. Not OOXML again.

I loved his Mad magazine comics (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420638)

tsia

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420654)

Microsoft apologist? please...

How does it feel (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420706)

How does it feel to know that your arrival precipitated the death of one of the world's most important standards setting organizations?

This guy should be fired before he starts. Then the people who hired him should also be fired.

Re:How does it feel (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421882)

Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?
See the løveli lakes.
The wøndërful telephøne system.
And mäni interesting furry animals.
Including the majestik møøse.
A Møøse once bit my sister...
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"...

...

We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

Break out the tar and feathers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420742)

"Microsoft apologist"... is that like a "communist sympathizer"?

Re:Break out the tar and feathers (3, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420800)

"Microsoft apologist"... is that like a "communist sympathizer"?

If Communism is a single, unified organization with both a multibillion-dollar budget and many experienced PR people dedicated to providing its own apologia, then yes the two terms have a lot in common.

Re:Break out the tar and feathers (1, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420994)

So are you referring to IBM? Oracle? Intel?

Re:Break out the tar and feathers (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421198)

So are you referring to IBM? Oracle? Intel?

Those three don't seem to have the online fanclub that Microsoft (or Apple for that matter) seem to have. The times I have seen stories about Oracle or Intel or IBM misbehaving, there were not nearly so many people who came out of the woodwork to defend them or make excuses for them as when a similar story appears about Microsoft. But for any who do this for the companies you mentioned, I'd say the same thing applies (leading me to wonder what your point was). If you are suggesting I am picking on Microsoft, I ask you one question: when it comes to abusive behavior that does not benefit the public, is the name of the corporation really important to you?

I personally feel no need to spend my time defending a corporation that has large budgets and legions of advertisers, PR people, and lawyers dedicated to giving it a good public image whether it actually deserves one or not. I have no rational explanation for the motives of people who do feel such a need. I suppose some of them may indeed be astroturfers but I don't think that's a satisfying explanation. It doesn't explain the genuine "fanboy" nature of much of this behavior, and I (would like to) think professional astroturfers could do a better job than most such posts I have seen on Slashdot. Personally I think it's typical "us against them" behavior like you see among sports fans who root for different teams, and about equally unsophisticated.

That I don't mention Linux or GPL'd software in general here is quite deliberate. I don't know of any authors of GPL'd software who are in a position to force their software or their standards on anyone. The very nature of it makes that difficult if not impossible. Therefore, there are no such abuses like embrace-and-extend coming from this group that would require apologists in the first place.

Re:Break out the tar and feathers (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421500)

When did they go threatening people with patents they refuse to even discuss?

So unless they are running a protection racket too, no not them.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31423628)

[x] Used specifically to cause fear and hatred
[x] Vague enough to be supportable with only a few quotes
[x] Generally irrelevant to the subject at hand
[x] Frequently irrational
[x] Heavily stigmatized in the community

We may have a winner.

That's no human (0, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420744)

He's a clone of Bill Gates! Created by Microsoft over the span of the last decade to ensure Microsoft conquers the world!

Look and see: http://investincotedazur.com/en/newsletter/index.php?txt=act9129 [investincotedazur.com]

*tinfoil hat activated*

Bill Gates is the heart of evil. (0, Flamebait)

You'reJustSlashFlock (1708024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420818)

We should make a new logo for the W3C with Jeff Jaffe as a Borg subordinate. You know, the reason /. only shows Gates' head is because the picture was snapped while it was removed from the body, as he is the Borg King.

MSFT is pushing Silverlight (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420762)

...so why would they care anymore whether IE will ever be compliant as long as corporate IT continue to make IE the default browser?

Re:MSFT is pushing Silverlight (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420926)

...so why would they care anymore whether IE will ever be compliant as long as corporate IT continue to make IE the default browser?

You've apparently put a little thought into it, so anything Microsoft says about standards is not intended for you. It's intended for people who honestly believe (because they have not thought about it) that an organization with billions of dollars, vast resources, and many talented developers could not make a standards-compliant browser if it really wanted to. Microsoft has never wanted to compete in a level playing field on the basis of merit, in terms of who can produce the best implementation of a given open standard. If they wanted to do that, they would do it and they would abandon embrace-and-extend. So, the W3C has a status something like "ignore when convenient" for Microsoft, and an insider in a position of authority who is sympathetic to their goals only makes this easier.

Corporations are fairly easy to understand once you look at them correctly. They're not evil or good; they're amoral. They're not nice or mean; they're strategically selfish. They don't do things haphazardly; they execute long-term plans. Good strategy looks just like the deck happened to be stacked in your favor from the beginning, as though it were coincidence or good luck.

Re:MSFT is pushing Silverlight (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422298)

For precisely the same reason why Silverlight works in Firefox, Safari and Chrome, and on OS X and not just Windows.

How about? (1, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420792)

How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?

Re:How about? (4, Insightful)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421052)

How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?

The main reason to not do that is that you probably won't get either the (main) browser makers or the users to show up. Without them, you're simply irrelevant. But if they do turn up, you've effectively got the W3C (with maybe a round of musical chairmanships at the top). Lot of fuss and bother to achieve nothing of value.

Re:How about? (2, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421292)

How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?

The main reason to not do that is that you probably won't get either the (main) browser makers or the users to show up. Without them, you're simply irrelevant. But if they do turn up, you've effectively got the W3C (with maybe a round of musical chairmanships at the top). Lot of fuss and bother to achieve nothing of value.

That's only the case because we are doing this market thing backwards. Specifically, the corporations involved have more power than their customers. So instead of listening to what their customers want and creating products in response to this demand, they produce the products first that serve their own interests and use clever marketing (and take advantage of existing marketshare) to artifically create demand for them. The result is that things like IE are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that is not open to negotiation.

If the customers frankly had a bit more backbone when it comes to being treated as a resource and didn't allow themselves to be manipulated for their marketshare/mindshare so easily, it would be the other way around. The W3C would be relevant or irrelevant based on whether most Web users and developers had faith in it. If most Web users and developers had faith in it, then the option available to Microsoft and Mozilla and other organizations would be simplified: abide by the standard or be ignored and fall by the wayside. I don't imagine this would be a problem for Mozilla, but this would require that Microsoft change the way they do things. If that happened, it could only be to our benefit.

Re:How about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422312)

That's why the OP's point was to form a new organization comprised of representatives from the major browser manufacturers. I know reading the articles is a bit much, but is reading the comments that you are responding to asking too much?

Re:How about? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421308)

Precisely such a thing exists, and is called WHATWG [wikipedia.org] . That said, specifically for HTML5 purposes, after developing it for a while separately from W3C, they've effectively forced W3C into dropping XHTML 2.0, and forming an HTML5 working group with essentially the same membership as WHATWG. The separate organization still exists, though.

Re:How about? (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421492)

What do you think the W3C is? It’s exactly that! And believe it or not, parts of the most important standards even came from Microsoft people. They are not all evil, you know.

I’m very happy that we now, for the first time, finally have all browsers support one single set of standards (XHTML 1.x / CSS 2.x / DOM 2 / JS), by listening to the W3C again. Instead of the chaos of the entire 90s and 00s!

What strange policies are you talking about? I find the work of the W3C nice. They care. Which is obvious, since they are the browser makers, amongst other interested groups.

Are you even a web developer?

In Particular, MS's Box Model is less Evil (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421908)

parts of the most important standards even came from Microsoft people. They are not all evil, you know.

Particularly their box model. That's right, I said it. The Microsoft box model is actually better than the w3c's css 2.1 model.

With either box model, you have the equation ContainerWidth = Padding + ContentWidth. But under the w3c model, you have to solve this equation, every time ContainerWidth or Padding changes. That's assuming you're using units where this is actually possible. If you want to use relative units, you're out of luck getting precise layout arithmetic and in some cases totally out of luck (unless you want to add scaffolding markup and style that too, but since half the point of CSS in the first place was to minimize that, it should be a red flag that something is wrong).

With Microsoft's model, the browser solves the equation for you whenever any kind of reflow is necessary.

Fortunately, with the advent of CSS 3, you have the option to tell the other browsers to do this the right way. Use box-sizing: border-box;.

Re:How about? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422254)

Generally, the W3C though seems to attempt to manipulate HTML for artificial means. Rather than the sane thing that most languages (both real and constructed) do and that is adapt to what the speakers/writers do, they simply say that they can do things a roundabout way rather than simply adapting the language. For example, the "font" element, "blink" and "marquee" which although very much used (especially during the early web) they were reluctant to actually do anything with what the writers wanted.

And yes, I was a web developer for a while, and still do some maintaining of sites. Nothing fancier though than some HTML, CSS and a very little bit of JavaScript.

Re:How about? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31423568)

You think 'blink' was worthy of support.

Your argument is invalid.

Look up "decommoditizing protocols" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31423750)


And believe it or not, parts of the most important standards even came from Microsoft people.

Yeah. And I wish they'd stay out of it. Have a look at the revolting mess SOAP is. They messed up WebDAV (locking, anyone?). They severely damaged UTF-8 (BOM? Ferchrissake!).

Every standard they got their little dirty fingers in tends to evolve into a huge steaming pile of shit. As if there were some purpose in it (but who knows -- it might be just natural evolution :)

A Little History Lesson (4, Informative)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421746)

How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser.

Who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

The W3C is a Consortium (that's the 'C') consisting of interested industry members. Right now, businesses who care how web technologies are developed have a vested interest in sitting down together and at least going through the motions of standardising languages and protocols.

The W3C might have democratic mechanisms, but it is neither a populist nor a grassroots organisation. It is, and always has been, an industry body.

I honestly don't know why Tim Berners-Lee decided that an industry consortium would be the best means to achieve web standards. I do know, however, that he chose deliberately and only after consideration. I suppose he hoped that collective interests would trump selfish motives and, if that failed, that other companies could be relied on to reign in the more egregious abuses.

It needs to be said that, in this respect at least, the W3C has been largely successful, but only in the way that standards bodies generally are: Through endless, awkward compromises that sometimes defy reason, and often with only reluctant support from the very people who developed the standards in the first place.

The W3C was born at a time when Netscape Communications ruled the roost, and acted like they didn't need anyone else. Virtually all of the abominations of early 'Tag Soup' HTML can be laid at Netscape's feet. Following that, we saw years of tug-of-war spec development, in which MS and Netscape defined their competing and incompatible implementations of numerous new elements and attributes.

But the W3C persevered and (painfully) slowly managed to bring us back from the brink to HTML 4 and eventually XHTML. There've been some interesting manoeuvres of late regarding WHATWG and HTML 5, but most interesting is the fact that the 'Tag Soup' crew and other unilateralists are more often on the defensive than in control. Much of that - indeed much of the conventional wisdom that Web Standards are Good - is the result of the efforts of the W3C and its members.

Re:A Little History Lesson (2, Interesting)

durdur (252098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421798)

The W3C might have democratic mechanisms, but it is neither a populist nor a grassroots organisation.

It's better than some. For one thing they are very committed to having debate and discussion take place in open forums, with email discussion and F2F meeting notes available to the public. This is the polar opposite of the closed door process Microsoft has lately preferred.

Re:How about? (1)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422156)

Apparently, it is not possible to promote free software without bashing commercial software.

Re:How about? (1)

mnot (71203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422750)

Because the Web is more than a browser.

w3c outliving its usefulness (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420794)

Given all of the link ins between the w3C and the corporations, maybe it is times to abolish it and start with a new standards body. One of the problem with involving companies like Microsoft in this is that they tend to try to subvert the process to keep standards from addressing needs, so they can implement their own proprietary solutions (like video in html5). Maybe it should be run by people who have no ties to corporations and who develop open source software only. Or why not allow the people who run it to be elected by the internet community at large rather than profit proprietary technology companies?

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420860)

"Or why not allow the people who run it to be elected by the internet community at large rather than profit proprietary technology companies?"

Probably because hemp products aren't the number one priority for web developers; intercompatibility between applications is.

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420944)

What does rope have to do with anything?

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (2, Informative)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420978)

What does rope have to do with anything?

Because anyone who suggests an alternative, community-oriented way of doing things must be immediately discredited and comparison to hippies singing kum-bay-ah around a campfire was the best that the GP could come up with.

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420874)

You have to have all of these people on board for things to work.

If no one even attempts a standard and everyone does their own thing in parallel, do you think it would make web developer *easier*?

No fucking way, it would mean you'd get to write the website 10x instead of 3x like you do now.

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (0, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421012)

Maybe it should be run by people who have no ties to corporations and who develop open source software only.

So people who have no relevancy to the world.

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421314)

Given all of the link ins between the w3C and the corporations, maybe it is times to abolish it and start with a new standards body.

The links between W3C and the corporations that actually implement technology used on the web are one of the things that make it useful as a standards body.

If the major vendors weren't involved in the standards body, it would be an academic exercise with no impact on the real world.

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421578)

Uuum, and so is everybody else in there. Believe me, IBM doesn’t like MS fucking up W3C. And so do the others.

But I agree about election in general. Just that that is even easier to subvert, since people are cattle. Look at the government elections. That is what would happen. Only worse.

If, then it should be decided by competent people. election power = competence. election actual choice = election power * election choice.
competence = measured by others with competence.
The only problem is, how to start this. And I’m still not sure that this can’t be subverted just as easily.

Re:w3c outliving its usefulness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31423556)

The problem is, you need all these constituents at the table -- corporate reps and independent geeks. For this reason, the W3C invited >100 independent folks to participate in the HTML5 Working Group. It's been a zoo, but at least the doors were open and those folks were at the table.

another jew ceo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31420862)

nothing to see here move along

W3C dead already, WHATWG is the way to go (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420876)

The W3C is long dead already, the WHATWG is the way to go for the future.

Re:W3C dead already, WHATWG is the way to go (4, Informative)

W3bbo (727049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420998)

You've been asleep for the past couple of years: The WHATWG was formed in response to the W3C's slow pace on HTML standards development. After a few months of prodding the W3C took the point and subsumed the WHATWG's work on HTML5 (formerly Web Applications 1.0). The W3C has been making fine progress on HTML5 and CSS3 of late; whilst the WHATWG does still exist, it's only working on a handful of less-important specifications that won't impact the majority of web designers and developers.

As for the W3C, it's far from dead. If anything it's the WHATWG that's dying: none of their other projects have anywhere near the same community following HTML5 did.

Re:W3C dead already, WHATWG is the way to go (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422350)

Your are assuming the people who forked once won't fork twice, if they do not get progress. Doubtful. Unless if in the merger process the WHATWG subsumed the W3C (like NeXT actually subsumed Apple).

Ugh (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420894)

I have had queezy feelings about the W3C for some time now and this just makes them even sicker. At this point, I would rather almost have the FSF friendly browser makers create a standards body that is, well, for those people that are interested in open systems and not playing leverage games with it.

I reminded of what became of OpenGL, when a cool little company tried to make a nice standard for everybody and instead the whole thing got hammered by a bunch of egos until it was more or less abandoned in mainstream Windows based 3D rendering.

Finally, I wish people could see that patents and lengthy copyrights are less free market than what we have now. You can say a system is free market when it is really a hodge podge of government subsidies and monopoly grants. I would propose that FSF people start calling themselves Free Market Services, and simultaneously label closed shops as Government Regulated Services, which is really what they are.

Oh, HIM (2, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31420898)

If you aren't familiar with Jeffe Jaffe, just read his Novell blogs. They're full of the most buzzword-laden bullshit I've ever seen from a CTO who is supposed to know what things are about technically. He certanly wasn't fit to fill Alan Nugent's shoes. While I didn't get the impression from what I'd read that he was a Microsoft apologist (although I certainly wouldn't be surprised), it wouldn't be so bad if I had actually seen him write (or even type) two words of sense together.

I can't fathom how people like that get jobs like this, what on Earth he is going to do (conversations with Tim Berners-Lee are likely to be cut rather short) and why this is deemed to be news. It's just another nail in the coffin of the W3C to have an idiot CEO like this.

Re:Oh, HIM (3, Funny)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421004)

I can't fathom how people like that get jobs like this...

He's probably just a better bullshitter than the other bullshitters in the bullshitting game.

Re:Oh, HIM (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421610)

Bullshit! ;)

Re:Oh, HIM (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421018)

They're full of the most buzzword-laden bullshit I've ever seen from a CTO who is supposed to know what things are about technically.

Don't let the T in CTO confuse you. CTOs are generally MBAs who barely know their way around a PC, much less a server or network.

Re:Oh, HIM (4, Informative)

bth (635955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421584)

It is fine to argue with Jeff's software philosophy, his use of buzz words in his blog, or his politics. But he is not an idiot MBA who doesn't know his way around a PC. He is a Fellow of the ACM and IEEE (for his technical contributions in algorithms and computer networks). He was a researcher before he became a corporate exec (see his publications at http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/j/Jaffe:Jeffrey_M=.html/ [uni-trier.de] and http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=portal&dl=ACM&query=Jeffrey+M.+Jaffe&short=1/ [acm.org] ).

Re:Oh, HIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31423578)

May be true about some CTOs, but not apparently this one. If you had bothered to read his info at: http://www.w3.org/People/Jeff/ (linked off the press release), you'd see that Jeff has a BS in Mathematics, an MS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and PhD in Computer Science -- all from MIT. Hardly a slouch resume.

Re:Oh, HIM (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421058)

Ah, yes. Al Nugent. You're right about him. When he came to CA from Novell, I thought things were going to change for the better technically. Alas, nobody can move a dinosaur.

Re:Oh, HIM (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421520)

That is all CTOs, they are all empty suits.

Jeff Jaffe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421048)

Should be replaced by Chris Cross.

Re:Jeff Jaffe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421118)

Cause he make you wanna jump jump?

Who's next? (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421162)

First we get Chris Wilson as the chair of the HTML working group, and now Jeff Jaffe as W3C CEO. Tim Berners-Lee is now going to focus on HTML5? He could have focused on XHTML2 and we'd have ended up with a better standard.

How many not-necessarily-desirable people are going to infiltrate the W3C before it becomes completely useless?

One more reason why W3C needs to be absorbed into a body that can stick to its mission.

How will this affect HTML5 video??? (1, Troll)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421196)

This is terrible news.

His swan song even talks about the "great satisfaction" of working with "Inventive people who write more software patents per capita than anywhere else".

HTML5 already has big problems with software patents forcing it to exclude all video format recommendations. What influence will this guy have in W3C?

Re:How will this affect HTML5 video??? (0, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421874)

What I find amusing is that often, within the entitlement community, software patents are derided as "something obvious, on a computer," but it seems to be that the converse case is much more prevalent, which is to say that the entitlement community thinks anything that was done on a computer is somehow obvious regardless of effort. Are you really laboring under the delusion that the H.264 spec didn't require serious inventive work? Or maybe it's just your contention that since it is done on a computer, they should be forced to give it away for free, regardless of that effort...

Re:How will this affect HTML5 video??? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422080)

This is a pretty sad troll attempt. You need to make it less obvious. You should add something about let you use their hard work.

"Copious links"? (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421384)

This strongly worded page at Boycott Novell features copious links to support the above characterization.

So I follow the link in TFS. And? I see a barely coherent rant about "evil enemies of Linux" infiltrating W3C - a bunch of links to that effect, but none to do specifically with Jeff - followed by the part that actually mentions him as the new "evil guy" on the block. The specific quote is "He was chosen despite his love for software patents", followed by 3 links. Of those, only two are actually unique (#2 and #3 are the same link). I reproduce them here, in order, for convenience:

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/21/mono-moonlight-novl-strategy/ [boycottnovell.com]
http://boycottnovell.com/2010/01/31/jeff-jaffe-and-zonker-quit/ [boycottnovell.com]

Now, here's the thing. Neither one of those even contains the word "patent" anywhere, much less in any citations!
Apparently - judging by the first of those links - the sole reason why they even speak of his "love of software patents" is because he dares to promote Mono and Moonlight.

Re:"Copious links"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421672)

Perhaps you were never informed that moonlight and mono are based on patented technology from Microsoft.

Re:"Copious links"? (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421742)

Would you care to identify the specific patents in question?

Can you also vouch that none of the "not evil" technologies used on Linux desktops today (say, Java) are not based on anyone's patented technology?

If no, then what is the difference?

Re:"Copious links"? (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421756)

So anyone who promotes any proprietary software from a major company (since all of them have patents on anything they can), is a lover of software patents and Microsoft apologist?

Sorry, but that's insane. Some of us use or suggest others use proprietary software because it can be the best tool for the job. Practicality actually does trump idealism in some cases for some people. Shocking, I know.

JJJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421870)

The headline should read:

Jeff Jaffe, Jefe.

No more consequences. (1)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421996)

Yet more proof, if it were needed, that once you reach the CXX level there are never any consequences for any of your actions :-(.

Jeremy.

SG1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422104)

Kree Jaffe!

Witch hunts (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422300)

I love the smell of witch hunts in the morning. That guy wasn't a "key architect" of the Novell deal, he wasn't even part of the company's leadership when it was finalized between Hovsepian and Ballmer. What he did do for many years was run the openSUSE project. But why let facts get in the way? The submitter of this flamebait (because what does one call it?) is one of BoycottNovell's groupies. He hangs out on their chat room as "ender270" and is currently in the middle of a legal dispute with David Schlesinger, one of the members of the GNOME board of directors - who incidentally was also attacked by BoycottNovell - subsequently the proprietor "Dr." Schestowitz was forced to issue an apology [boycottnovell.com] for that.

But of course, his crime is that he dared work for Novell. For this he should be punished for all eternity.

BoycottNovell and the 12 people (including one of our past [slashdot.org] resident trolls) who count themselves as members of that "community" are the ass-end of FOSS advocacy.

Re:Witch hunts (3, Informative)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422956)

Jeff was *definitely* one of the architects Novell/Microsoft deal, and had been part of the leadership for at least a year when it was finalized. I know. I was there.

But don't let facts get in the way of your post.

Jeremy.

Re:Witch hunts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31423496)

Why is it, by the way, that your quite sudden anti-Microsoft slog has materialized only after you became a Google employee?

Oh thats just bloody fucking great! (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422792)

The WC3 is getting a CEO that was the CTO at Novell. Crap-fucking-tastic!

Yeah this is the same idiot that pushed Novell in the direction of self destruction along with the Idiot of a CEO who is more then likely going to get a hell of a golden parachute when Elliot takes Novell apart and scatters it to the 4 winds.

While I used to only think that the WC3 was worthless, now I am completely convinced.

Who is next on Micro$oft hit list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31423618)

ISO check
W3C check

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?