I recently read a post on the W3C’s blog: W3C Website redesign: Choosing a front end framework.
I left the comment below that I’ll assume WILL NOT get approved by the blog’s moderators.
This is one of the BIGGEST issues I have with the W3C and it’s bold claim of leading the web to its full potential.
Why is the W3C considering the use of frameworks in the re-design of its website?
Currently, the web has a problem with heavy pages. Some websites are demanding that visitors download megabytes of code; most of which have no benefit to the visitor or even the actual web page itself.
Why wouldn’t the W3C use its own technologies (HTML 5 XML-syntax, CSS, ARIA, SVG, etc.) in their rawest, or vanilla, forms to re-build their website?
This effort may be challenging, but it would give the W3C a unique opportunity to dog food their tech to uncover areas that my warrant a re-look or improvement.
W3C, a decade ago, wanted to push XHTML 2.0. Now it has a chance to do it with its own website using HTML 5 (XML-syntax) served with the proper mime-type.
RDFa is yet another area the W3C could lead the way. Is RDFa even a worthwhile endeavor for other websites to use if the W3C will not even use it in favor of the quick and easy use of frameworks?
The W3C should position itself as the mature authority for the web. Let the lazy programmers and the web jocks take their shortcuts with frameworks.
Re-designing the W3C website without the use of frameworks enables a lean website and demonstrates a responsible attitude towards reducing heavy pages on the web. Why wouldn’t a leader of the web want to do this?
Stop trying to hang out with the WHATWG and the other cool kids around the water cooler, grab your pipes, and start doing the right thing by pushing the web in the direction it needs to go.
How come at every opportunity to do the RIGHT thing, the W3C opts to do the WRONG thing?
First, the consortium removed the standardizing component (SGML) from HTML 5. Time is based on a standard. Weights and measures are based on standards.
And yet, the W3C allowed bullying tactics to coerce it into doing the WRONG thing.
Second, the consortium got involved with Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), which conflicted with its mission statement regarding open standards. EME was an area that the W3C could have simply left to the controlling parties involved.
And yet, again, the W3C took the WRONG path and allowed financial pressure to coerce it into compromising its own philosophies.
Third, the consortium handed over the core specification of the web, HTML 5, to the renegades at the WHATWG, which had already demonstrated that moving the web forward is NOT in its purview. Instead, the WHATWG is focused on accommodating lazy programmers who have no responsibility to the web outside of their own irresponsible interests.
And yet, again and again, the W3C kowtowed to the usurpers at the WHATWG. Instead of controlling the core specification, the W3C became a secretary whose sole function is to proofread the bullshit that comes out of the WHATWG’s back side.
WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG!
Now, we have this.
The principle site for the web, the W3C’s own website, is slated to undergo a re-design, which some would think will also include a re-thinking of how to employ current W3C technologies to showcase their benefits to other web D’s (designers, developers, and douchebags).
I guess, as with other places in the world, leadership at the top level is only a figment of our imagination.