Group items tagged

Abstract HTML4 and CSS2 currently support media-dependent style sheets tailored for different media types. For example, a document may use sans-serif fonts when displayed on a screen and serif fonts when printed. ‘screen’ and ‘print’ are two media types that have been defined. Media queries extend the functionality of media types by allowing more precise labeling of style sheets. A media query consists of a media type and zero or more expressions that check for the conditions of particular media features. Among the media features that can be used in media queries are ‘width’, ‘height’, and ‘color’. By using media queries, presentations can be tailored to a specific range of output devices without changing the content itself.

There must be at least two interoperable implementations. For the purposes of this criterion, we define the following terms: interoperable passing the respective test case(s) in the CSS test suite, or, if the implementation is not a Web browser, an equivalent test. Every relevant test in the test suite should have an equivalent test created if such a user agent (UA) is to be used to claim interoperability. In addition if such a UA is to be used to claim interoperability, then there must one or more additional UAs which can also pass those equivalent tests in the same way for the purpose of interoperability. The equivalent tests must be made publicly available for the purposes of peer review.

The Worldwide Web Consortium has released the results of its first HTML5 conformance tests, and according to this initial rundown, the browser that most closely adheres to the latest set of web standards is...Microsoft Internet Explorer 9. Yes, the HTML5 spec has yet to be finalised. And yes, these tests cover only a portion of the spec. But we can still marvel at just how much Microsoft's browser philosophy has changed in recent months. The W3C tests — available here — put IE9 beta release 6 at the top of the HTML5 conformance table, followed by the Firefox 4 beta 6, Google Chrome 7, Opera 10.6, and Safari 5.0. The tests cover seven aspects of the spec: "attributes", "audio", "video", "canvas", "getElementsByClassName", "foreigncontent," and "xhtml5":

The tests do not yet cover web workers, the file API, local storage, or other aspects of the spec.

Today W3C, the International Standards Organization (ISO), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) took steps that will encourage greater international adoption of W3C standards. W3C is now an "ISO/IEC JTC 1 PAS Submitter" (see the application), bringing "de jure" standards communities closer to the Internet ecosystem. As national bodies refer increasingly to W3C's widely deployed standards, users will benefit from an improved Web experience based on W3C's standards for an Open Web Platform. W3C expects to use this process (1) to help avoid global market fragmentation; (2) to improve deployment within government use of the specification; and (3) when there is evidence of stability/market acceptance of the specification. Web Services specifications will likely constitute the first package W3C will submit, by the end of 2010. For more information, see the W3C PAS Submission FAQ.

The thing I find most attractive about Google Buzz is its stated commitment to open standards: We believe that the social web works best when it works like the rest of the web — many sites linked together by simple open standards. So I took a bit of time to look over the standards involved. I’ll focus here on the standards that are new to me.

On October 06, 2008, OASIS issued a public call for participation in a new technical committee chartered to define specifications for use of Web services and Web 2.0 interfaces to enable information sharing across content management repositories from different vendors. The OASIS Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) TC will build upon existing specifications to "define a domain model and bindings that are designed to be layered on top of existing Content Management systems and their existing programmatic interfaces. The TC will not prescribe how specific features should be implemented within those Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems. Rather it will seek to define a generic/universal set of capabilities provided by an ECM system and a set of services for working with those capabilities." As of February 17, 2010, the CMIS technical work had received broad support through TC participation, industry analyst opinion, and declarations of interest from major companies. Some of these include Adobe, Adullact, AIIM, Alfresco, Amdocs, Anakeen, ASG Software Solutions, Booz Allen Hamilton, Capgemini, Citytech, Content Technologies, Day Software, dotCMS, Ektron, EMC, EntropySoft, ESoCE-NET, Exalead, FatWire, Fidelity, Flatirons, fme AG, Genus Technologies, Greenbytes GmbH, Harris, IBM, ISIS Papyrus, KnowledgeTree, Lexmark, Liferay, Magnolia, Mekon, Microsoft, Middle East Technical University, Nuxeo, Open Text, Oracle, Pearson, Quark, RSD, SAP, Saperion, Structured Software Systems (3SL), Sun Microsystems, Tanner AG, TIBCO Software, Vamosa, Vignette, and WeWebU Software. Early commentary from industry analysts and software engineers is positive about the value proposition in standardizing an enterprise content-centric management specification. The OASIS announcement of November 17, 2008 includes endorsements. Principal use cases motivating the CMIS technical work include collaborative content applications, portals leveraging content management repositories, mashups, and searching a content repository.

Last week I wrote about the benefits of open standards versus open source. I argued that open standards provide greater protection against vendor lock-in than open source alone. I was reminded of this conclusion when reading Peter-Paul Koch's analysis of WebKit implementations. Thanks to Palm's Dion Almaer for pointing out the analysis. Readers know WebKit as the open source Web browser engine used by several mobile and PC Web browsers, including Apple's Safari, Google's Chrome, Palm's WebOS, and the Android Web browser. In fact, Wikipedia lists 19 browsers based on the open source WebKit browser engine. As you read on, keep in mind there is no standard that vendors using WebKit must adhere to or claim certification against. A WebKit-based browser is, well, whatever the vendor wants it to be.

Imagine if there were a WebKit standard and a compliance test suite that vendors had to certify against to use the WebKit brand. Customers and developers would gain protection against vendor lock-in that open standards deliver to a much higher degree than open source alone. I'm not naive enough to think that open standards equal "write once, run anywhere." But even if a WebKit open standard could drive a 50 percent improvement in compatibility across WebKit-based browsers, that would be something to write home about.