The Web Standards Project (WaSP) Shuttered 64
hypnosec writes "Aaron Gustafson and two of his fellow contributors, Bruce Lawson and Steph Troeth, have announced the closure of The Web Standards Project (WaSP). It was formed back in 1998 by Glenn Davis, George Olsen, and Jeffrey Zeldman to get browser makers support the open standards established by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The project described itself as a 'coalition fighting for standards which ensure simple, affordable access to web technologies for all.' Founded at a time when Microsoft and Netscape were battling it out for browser dominance, WaSP aimed to mitigate the risks arising out of this war – an imminent fragmentation that could lead to browser incompatibilities. Noting that '..Tim Berners-Lee's vision of the web as an open, accessible, and universal community is largely the reality' Aaron noted that it was time to 'close down The Web Standards Project.'"
congrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Great work (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they will be remembered, but hopefully not missed! :-)
WaSP? (Score:2, Insightful)
Did they ever explain what the "a" stood for?
Re:Time to form the MWaSP (Score:1, Insightful)
What exactly do MS and Mozilla bring to the web that they can't do within WebKit? They can have different Javascript engines, implement different UI, have different 'extensions' to HTML [attributes, elements, css features, etc].
Homogeneity is NOT bad for the web. Having developers need to test their site on a bazillion different browsers is NOT a good thing. Having users switch from one browser to another, and have the same page do slightly different things or work slightly differently is NOT a good thing.
What WAS bad was having a single company intentionally implement their so-called web browser so it worked differently from everyone else's and even against the standard at the time.
Re:Time to form the MWaSP (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that, with that kind of attitude, rendering issues in browsers will never be fixed. Even if the rendering engine is crap, and the standard claims a different (more sensible, more functional, whatever) behavior, with a single rendering engine used as the de facto standard, it would never get fixed. Unsurprisingly, whenever one reports a rendering bug, the first question that gets asked is: does it work in other engines? Luckily, we still have at least three major engines (the fourth, Presto, has only been recently abandoned), so we can still compare and see which engines are wrong in implementing that specific part of the standard, and which are not. Without these multitude of implementations, one of the primary motivation in fixing bugs disappears.
Monocultures are bad. Regardless of whether they're open-source or not.
Encrypted Media Extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the W3C is now working on DRM for the web.
Encrypted Media Extensions [w3.org]
It is not possible to have an open web and have DRMed content. You cannot give me the keys and the encryption scheme and to expect DRM to work.
Microsoft, Google and Netflix want to add DRM-hooks to W3C HTML5 standard [boingboing.net]
The BBC Petitions the W3C to Implement DRM for HTML5 [goodereader.com]
It's just like Flash or Silverlight but with the blessing of the W3C.
Open source browsers and open source systems like Linux cannot support the Encrypted Media Extensions, without binary blobs.