[wp-hackers] Wordpress and Web Standards
lavigne at getphuture.com
Sat Oct 7 22:50:10 GMT 2006
Honestly I'm feeling ridiculous.
I didn't know you were the lead developer of Wordpress, a wasp member
and webstandards.org was developed with this platform.
So I am a paddawan in front of a master regards to your skills and you
don't need me (It would be me to need you : ) So I'm going to stop
"annoying" you about standards topics and wordpress politics you already
I wish you and Wordpress a great future.
Cell Phone: +33618753267
Some exist through what they do...
We exist through what we are
Matt Mullenweg wrote:
> Pierre-Henri Lavigne wrote:
>> I define the Web standards as a way to apply truly and realistly the
>> specifications from the W3C. The Web Standards Project (WaSP) fights
>> for standards that reduce the cost and complexity of development
>> while increasing the accessibility and long-term viability of any
>> site published on the Web. (From http://www.webstandards.org/about/)
>> WASP and other communities are helping to use those web standards.
> As a member of WaSP, I agree with your concerns.
>> I define standard(s) (not standards as the shortcut for web
>> standards) languages or technologies that are using the approach to
>> define the basics every developer should follow. Following this way,
>> developers agree and unify themself to use those resources. There are
>> not especially and automatically references to the web world.
> Yes, but it's important to be wary of
> standards-for-the-sake-of-standards, or ones that do not provide
> meaningful benefit over current standards-based conventions.
> Lots of standards "suck", HTTP has mispelled "referrer" longer than
> I've been on the web, but changing things to make them "more correct"
> is a bad idea. (*cough*frakincommentsRsS*cough)
> If something doesn't solve a real-world problem, I'm not particularly
> interested in it.
>> users and hardware is to support a unique format for each feed. Here
>> is a wiki link to compare RSS 2.0 and ATOM 1.0 :
> That document is mostly FUD, very little of it applies to us. I'm not
> sure which of the points there, or the points later in your email, are
> meant to apply to WordPress. RSS 2.0 can be ambiguous in parts, which
> is why we follow conventional RSS:
> If there was an aggregator which could not parse any of the feeds that
> we produce, that would be a good reason to re-examine things, but by
> definition such an aggregator would probably never reach a point of
> success that we would care.
More information about the wp-hackers