w3c and public image/an embarrassment for front-end
The w3c, they are our lord and master. Every web technology has its own guardian, be it a commercial company or open source community. As front-end developers we were dealt the w3c organization, for better or for worse. Yesterday they launched a new campaign intended to give an added boost to the already raging html5 hype. The new html5 logo should become the symbol of a new age of web development. But general perception is less than positive.
w3c, who are you?
In all these years I never quite figured out what or who drives the w3c. I assume it's a non-profit organization, but considering all the work they do it's not unlikely engaged participants are compensated in some way or another. Not that it matters much to me (or is even relevant to this article), but it does indicate that the w3c is no ordinary organization, harboring some mystical dimensions.
Apart from regulating the road map of the technologies we front-end people work with every single day, they also bear a more public function. They are our point of reference when people ask us about the specifics of our job. They host the specs, they round up all the accessibility guidelines, they are the ones that hold the key to all the under-appreciated subtleties of our profession.
Whatever the reason may be, the w3c has always had issues with this public responsibility. Their communicative skills seem quite underdeveloped compared to the guardians of other technologies, resulting in a sub-par website, obtuse communication channels and a general lack of convincing the outside world they know what they are doing.
For years people have told me that accessibility and quality design don't go together simply because they went to check the w3c website and were appalled with what they found there (go figure). Over the past years there have been several attempts to improve this situation, but none of those brought them to a level where we (front-end developers) could actually be proud to point other people to the w3c.
html5 video
With html5 booming they took this opportunity to somewhat overturn their public image. Looking at the site built around the new html5 logo I can only conclude it's like nothing I've ever seen from the w3c before. It's a modern, glossy attempt to construct a community feel around what should be the way of the future. I clearly say "attempt" because the result is as hollow and empty as one could fear from such an undertaking.
Not only is their continuous attempt at humor and lightness a little embarrassing, they made a few very questionable decisions along the way. One of them is to revive the use of technology badges. Their campaign page even features a badge builder (5000 - man I couldn't stop laughing) where you can customize your own badge for use on your site, project or wherever you plan on using it. Why anyone would like to go back to those days is absolutely beyond me.
Worse though is the fact they are pushing css3 as an integral part of html5, apparently Bruce Lawson's ranting hat wasn't quite effective enough. While opinions are divided about commercial parties like Google and Apple abusing the terminology, it's scary to see an organization like the w3c (who should know what they're talking about, they wrote the damn specs) take off with it. It leaves us with very little options to fight the misuse of the html5 label when even the w3c is joining in.
conclusion
How unreasonable is it to demand a certain degree of professionalism from the w3c? All I want is to point people to the w3c when they have any intentions of finding out more about html, css, javascript, accessibility or whatever other front-end related topic, without feeling embarrassed to do so or without putting those people off before they even started?
While this attempt to inject some fresh juice into the pr of the organization is laudable, I don't think it's wise to come off as the next hyped up yet hollow and meaningless technology fling. I thought html5 was supposed to be the future of our profession, not some knock-off hype constructed to feed on emptiness and buzz alone. The html5 logo campaign site looks like website designed for a party organized by boy scouts, not like a serious step in the growth of a more open, semantic and stable web. So dearest people of the w3c, you don't have to be hip and cool, nor square and old-fashioned. Just be solid, decent and quality-minded. Please?
Comments
Mathias
Are they? While the W3C was trying to kill of HTML in favor of XHTML2, the WHATWG started working on the spec that is now known as HTML5. I don’t know about you, but my ‘loyalty’ lies with them. Hail Hixie, our true lord and master ;)
JJ
Although I disagree with your perception of this in a general way, it feels like the w3 is actually endorsing buzz words. In the FAQ on the logo page, they say that HTML5 is an umbrella term for several things including CSS (presumably css3), SVG, and WOFF.
When I say HTML5, I'm referring to the markup language, not some arbitrary group of technologies. =/ (I could maybe understand SVG being included there, as it has been somewhat appended to the HTML5 spec).
Rich, Leeds
Just visited the W3's site having not been aware of this re-launch until I read this post.
I'm really hoping that all the nonsense with the html5 logo is just a temporary thing. I don't mind them being a bit "kidult" every time a new version of html comes out, but people go to that site for technical information, not entertainment.
They have done a great job thus far (I remember the nightmare days of Netscape and IE4), so hopefully they are not going to permanently dumb down.
Niels Matthijs
The WHATWG site ...
While I definitely appreciate the work they have done (and the role they played in htm5) , I believe the w3c is still the reigning organization when it comes to standards and public communication.
Rob
This article makes me question a lot of things about you. It's almost as if you never visit the W3C, know that it's made up of mostly larger corporations, created HTML and supports most web technologies. I find it hard to believe this is the first time you've been made aware of this.
On the one hand, I agree the W3C moves in mysterious ways but, otoh, this is typical of standards creating bodies that are made up of scientists and engineers who thoughtfully create such things. The general public just doesn't understand why it's not slapped together and shipped.
Compared to XHTML2, XML, and all the other tech before HTML5, the people working on HTML5 are "script kiddies" and I'm not surprised this new generation got all excited about the logo to feed their need for explosions and pretty blinking lights instead of well grounded science.
James
I think it's a nice logo.
ClubAJAX
Excellent article. You've nailed the W3C to the wall for being over-thinking, procrastinating, pseudo-intellectuals who almost killed the web before the coup by Apple, Mozilla and Opera which created the WHATWG. They didn't get HTML, and this bogus eye-candy shows they don't get HTML5 either. I also was looking at that CSS3 icon and thinking... wtf? That doesn't belong there...
The W3C needs a Usability section on their site. It would be easy to implement because it's only content would be "Not available."
Vic
You could say that again!!
However, your post prompted me to check out their home page (probably after a gap of well over a year) and FWIW, it looks kind of uber cool ;-)
Jeroen Bensch
I believe this link is appropriate now:
html is the new html5
HTML5 is dead! Long live HTML!
Anthony
Is the gripe with the Logo, W3C, their web page or the standard specifications they maintain???
The Logo's fine. Facebook has a lower case "f" in a blue box... I see more to gripe about that, but that's my problem. Either way, it's a distinguishable graphic, and will function suitably for purpose.
W3C are a standards body. I'm not sure what you're expecting? You don't actually specify what the issue is. Why would you want to be proud to point to the W3C? Why would you be pointing at them? Who'd care? Maybe the issue is the tools,language, implementing platforms?
HTM5 is been trumpeted by a lot of corners. The people behind the standard are entitled to get in on that.
Well done W3C....
Niels Matthijs
The gripe is with the public image of the w3c (hence the title). Couldn't care less about the logo, I do care about how they present themselves to the outside world.
When it comes to the importance of html, standards, accessibility and other fuzzy aspects of front-end code, I (we?) usually have to defend ourselves to development partners and clients who don't really get what we are doing. Now I could point them to Zeldman or Roger Johansson's site, but with all do respects, they are simple individuals who wield very little power over outside parties.
Fact is that developers and clients alike usually do know about the w3c, and when talking about valid html that is accessible they are the main point of reference. This is not something I decided, this is the simple reality of our job. The w3c themselves might not be happy with that, it still doesn't change the current situation.
So as long as I have to keep explaining myself and as long as I have to point to the w3c for further backup of my claims, people not in the know are going to stumble upon their website and they will be raising a few eyebrows.
telga
What the current w3c web site looks like is not so important. But the w3c's support of free web standards remains the most important fact about the w3c and the single most important condition for the Web, past, present, and future; it's why the w3c is still worth fighting for. Read it again:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis. Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms.
To this end, Working Group charters will include a reference to this policy and a requirement that specifications produced by the Working Group will be implementable on an RF basis, to the best ability of the Working Group and the Consortium.
Doesn't the adoption of a royalty-bearing specification like H.264 break the w3c royalty-free policy, so to recommend H.264 the w3c would have to change its policy and the web as we have known it--or reject htlm5 delivering web standards completely over to WHATWG, which notably <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebHypertextApplicationTechnologyWorking_Group">lacks a patent policy to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis</a>? Isn't that the big deal behind WebM? Not breaking Mozilla, Opera, Open Source AND the w3c by forcing a change to royalty-bearing web standards starting with H.264?
Isn't WebM about the w3c still keeping html/web standards royalty free? And how many people realise that if you want to learn/read/know an ISO spec you have to buy it? That gets very expensive. w3c specs are free to read on that maligned web site of theirs (I liked the look of the old one better, too; it's refreshing absence of stylishness).
Free web standards are what this conversation should be about IMO.
Jeroen Bensch
H.264 is an open standard controlled by a standards body and has been made royalty free:
http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf
WebM is not a standard but is open source, though has only one reference implementation, controlled by one company, Google. About patents nobody seems to know. MPEG La warns that WebM might be violating patents. No-one, yet, seems interested enough to investigate. Not even Google, which raises questions. If they want to spur hardware makers to include hardware video accelleration they need to be in the clear about whether or not any patent infringements can backfire onto them. Not so much an issue for the simple computer user: "Come on! WebM is free!" but it is very much an issue if you're about to invest a couple of billions in this relatively unknown and unused video codec.
It cannot be denied. Google is only open when it suits them, they're not open at all. It is a business. What they're doing now is locking people and companies out in favor of their own eco-system they're trying to create. Nothing wrong with that, but not very open. Numerous examples could ensue, but mine and your comment, telga, already brought us back to Onderhond's post about Chrome dropping support for h.264. Google just happens to have a codec.
telga
With all respect Jeroen, according to the pdf you link to, H.264 certainly is a royalty-bearing patent; rather MPEG LA, the company that owns H.264, is extending to 2015, for just 4 more years, its patent licence agreement to not charge royalty for Internet video that is <strong>free</strong> to end users.
Note the very limiting conditions here: currently H.264's patent owners are choosing not to charge royalties for a very short time into the future, only to 2015, and only for Internet video that is offered free to end users.
After 2015 there is every possibility that MPEG LA will choose to change its licencing agreement with respect to Internet video offered free to end users--and start collecting royalty payments. There is already a good deal of concern over what even the current H.264 licence agreement may consider commercial use of H.264 on the Internet.
It is surely in MPEG LA's interest to be very liberal about the conditions that help lead to H.264s widespread implementation. Liberal, that is, until H.264 is indeed universally used or becomes the standard at which time, it may very likely be in MPEG LA's best interests to charge royalties for free Internet video or even to begin to collect royalties on what it will define commercial use of Internet video. In any event, after 2015, the H.264 licencing agreement can be changed again, to who knows what conditions? Can you show anywhere that MPEG LA is on record as promising to change its essential claims with respect to H.264 being royalty-bearing?
Certainly, H.264's current licencing agreement is very far from the w3c's policy on royalty-free web standards--that the "W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms".
In full, the w3c says:
"In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis. Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms."
Arguing about the claims or merits of Apple and Google is, IMO, a diversion. The pressing issue here, as I've set out in my post above, is the survival of the w3c as a web standards body whose policy is to keep web standards royalty-free. Surely, we all want royalty-free web standards? There is an enormous difference between a patent licence agreement that sets conditions on your use of a web standard whether commercial or non-commercial, and a standards body patent policy that will not recommend a specification that has any such licence agreement precisely because it can choose to charge royalties depending on what use it allows you to put its patent to.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, the adoption of a royalty-bearing specification like H.264 would break the w3c's royalty-free policy, so to recommend H.264 the w3c would have to change its policy and the web as we have known it--or reject htlm5 delivering the web standard over to WHATWG, which notably <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebHypertextApplicationTechnologyWorking_Group">lacks a patent policy to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis</a>. Through forcing a change from royalty-free web standards to royalty-bearing web standards starting with H.264, wouldn't we see the demise of Mozilla, Opera, FOSS, and the w3c? Is that a future we want?
Here is the quote in full from page 1 of MPEG LA's pdf, which you cite:
"MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015."
Corrected Version of February 2, 2010 News Release Titled “MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Continue Not to Charge Royalties for Internet Video that is Free to End Users”
(DENVER, CO, US – 2 February 2010) – MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015. Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be royalty-bearing, and royalties to apply during the next term will be announced before the end of 2010. MPEG LA's AVC Patent Portfolio License provides access to essential patent rights for the AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) digital video coding standard. In addition to Internet Broadcast AVC Video, MPEG LA’s AVC Patent Portfolio License provides coverage for devices that decode and encode AVC video, AVC video sold to end users for a fee on a title or subscription basis and free television video services. AVC video is used in set-top boxes, media player and other personal computer software, mobile devices including telephones and mobile television receivers, Blu-ray DiscTM players and recorders, Blu-ray video optical discs, game machines, personal media player devices and still and video cameras. For more information about MPEG LA’s AVC License or to request a copy of the License, please visit http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx