Progress vs. Perfection
Sunday October 31st 2004
An ever-flowing dialog within the web standards community deals with the extremes to which we must strive to adhere to the W3C's web standards recommendations. There are two generalized camps in such a debate, separated by a fine line that no matter how thin it may be, it still stretches to each horizon's edge, so that while these two sides may stand side by side from sun-up to sun-down, they still oppose each other, pushing and pulling to get their own way.
On Side A of said line, it is believed that there is a world shrowded in black, and a world showered in light: where either a web site is strictly "to code", strictly valid, strictly separated from presentation and content, OR not. Not even close is the same as nearly there. Until you are Born Again, you are doomed to Purgatory for an eternity.
Her neighbor brother just on Side B is less puritanical. Yes, standards should be followed. Yes, presentation and content should be separated. Yes, pages should be well-formed, semantic, and valid. But always? Without exception? In an imperfect world, that sometimes is asking too much, and Side B is willing to see that flaw and allow for it.
It is worth noting that there is a third Side to this, but just like good ol' Ralph Nader, it hasn't exactly been invited to the table. Side C doesn't do much more than acknowledge the existence of web standards and W3C's recommendations, so certainly they aren't apt to discuss the lengths to which we should charge the developing public to pursue them. In truth, the existence and polarity of Sides A and B are precisely to effect and affect those on Side C. Side C may not be a part of the debate, but ultimately they are the center of it, because as soon as they are all converted and it becomes two sides instead of three, it will then become time to move forwards toward One Side. That is, at least, the dream.
So the question I'm considering is, what side am I on? I've long been claiming to be a proud Idealist, finding more nobility in forever striving for Purity in Life, and never acknowledging it's tainted underbelly. Morally I have neither desire nor ingenuity to be dishonest or insincere, often at the cost of a situation's advantage or innocent, harmless benefit. So I would tend to lean towards Side A, the unrelenting, purist side, envisioning a perfect world and stampeeding after it with relentless precision. . .
Still, I see compromise as a much better solution than endless conflict. I favor peace to war. And I favor progression to regression, or even no movement at all. My humble belief is that you cannot force the hand of your opponent and produce a harmonious, balanced peacetime. Yet if you can get both sides to agree on SOMETHING, even if it isn't precisely YOUR thing, then, well, that's progress.
But before I place my feet on a side of that great continental divide that is our Fine Line, let's outline the Issues. Molly E. Holzschlag jump-started this thought with her recent posting on her own web site as well as the Web Standards Project. Well, she didn't so much as jump-start it as conject and conclude, but hers was particular to the topic of clarifying how standard our touted web standards actually are. In summary she states:
So, hereís what we have:Clearly a difference between what is an explicit part of a specification or recommendation and what is the ideal goal thatís implied by either the specification and practitioners (or both).
- Separation of presentation and structure: implied as ideal: a best practice.
- Semantic markup: implied: a best practice
- Content delivery via media types: explicit, a "standard."
- Well-formed markup: explicit, a "standard."
- Conformance: explicit, a "standard."
It seems obvious that Molly is a staunch supporter and advocate of Side B. And with some factual evidence to back her up, it seems that her opinion is actually shaped by our Laws, not just by her philosophical convictions.
And so it seems that the Letter of the Law is actually itself a flexible and understanding being. Perhaps it is simply in touch with reality enough to know that to beg and demand for strict adherence to standards in a world aggregated from web junkies and web newbies alike would be hopeless and a failure by default. Why demand for an absolute if it is certain (at this point in time) to not get it? Why not encourage participation and consideration, and have faith that if all 3 camps get close enough together, THEN we will be at a point to demand and receive Perfection?
In the end, I sit happily on Side B, but I think it is worthy to note that when I finally left Side C (where nearly all of us got our roots), I jumped straight to Side A, righteous and resolute in my conversion. But after a year of stomping and huffing, I have realized that Side A is too extreme for my tastes, and while they are necessary to continue pushing the boundaries of our profession, that is not the kind of war I care to wage.