Scott Andrew - lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!

So I wasn’t going to say anything about Dave Winer’s war with the CSS zealots, especially now that he’s planning on offering a CSS-based theme for Radio.

But it intrigues me. The push for XHTML/CSS gets a lot of resistance from certain people, which leads me to wonder: what’s the big deal? Why is it when web developers ask for something as simple as CSS, or a valid XHTML template, we either get harsh ridicule or a patronizing chuckle and pat on the head?

So all zealotry aside, I tried to come up with a handful of reasons why ignoring or trivializing things like XHTML and CSS is harmful, without pointing to the W3C and screaming “because it’s standard!”

I’ve come up with three things:

Developers like correctness.
People expect more from the browser.
Web development is the hardest of all.

Developers like correctness. This should be a given for anyone wanting to build a developer community, web or otherwise. Developers like doing things the correct way. The little thrill you get from validating your HTML and CSS is no different than that one you get from writing your first XML-based app, or your first error-free Perl script or Java servlet.

It’s also why refactoring is such a big deal to developers; we’re always aiming to make the code sleeker and more elegant, and apply better approaches we’ve learned from experience.

In other words: we want to be ninjas, masters of our craft. Let us be ninjas!

Would you be so denied, Mr. or Ms. C++/Java/XML/VB Developer?

For years, no one cared about a “correct” way of doing web pages, so long as they looked pixel-perfect in as many browsers possible. Now a standardized approach is starting to take shape, and the uptake by web developers is increasing.

We don’t use web standards because the W3C says to. We use them because they make sense, and we like them.

Please, give us some credit.

The worst thing one could do is deny a burgeoning alliance of developers the option to use what they feel are best practices. They will smell something strange and find another sandbox to play in.

Allow developers the right to scream and carry on about web standards. Eventually, CSS will be as good as tables for layout. Netscape 4 will die. But it will never happen if developers can’t use new tech and help it grow.

People are still expecting more from the browser. You would think that with the web developer community focusing more and more on standards, the markup and CSS would be getting simpler and thus developers happier.

Wrong. The CSS and DOM specs continue to grow and change, HTML has become XHTML, and the addition of newer technologies such as XSL/XSLT and customizable schemas, not to mention a whole host of indirect considerations (accessibility, usability, multiple device support, et. al.) have greatly changed what it means to build a “web page.”

The perception of what web pages are capable of doing is changing too. People are starting to understand the concept of the browser as an application platform — however unstable and crappy it may be, it’s still the number one way people find info on the Web. We’ve been figuring out ways to make the browser experience more application-like for years now, and it’s getting better all the time. People are starting to expect things like real-time content, instant feedback without a screen refresh, desktop-like UIs, in-situ editing, even dorky drop-down menus.

And as our forthcoming book will show, these things are umpteen times easier to implement when web standards reign supreme.

Just because there’s a “return to elegance” movement focusing on XHTML/CSS among web developers doesn’t mean the crazy stuff is going to go away, or that those technologies aren’t worthy of note beyond formatting data for the screen.

Web development is the hardest of all. This all leads into a third point which has been troubling me for some time. There’s a weird, underlying vibe that HTML, CSS and other browser-side tech is not important anymore, and that people who specialize in this type of development aren’t worth listening to.

Hear me now and believe me later: the browser is the most complicated environment to develop in, period. Anyone who still thinks that even simple web pages can be “just thrown together” over the course of a weekend is grossly miseducated. Web developers don’t have the luxury or even the illusion of a stable runtime. What works in one browser will break in another, and that’s the browser the CFO will be using.

It’s hard, and deserving of respect.

I don’t know where this attitude comes from. Maybe it’s because behind-the-scenes things like SOAP and web services are where the sexiness is at right now, but let’s be frank: none of those technologies are making the client-side any easier.

To think that there’s no value on the client side is ridiculous. I tell you right now that for every miraculous SOAP-driven EAI solution put in place, there’ll be a request for a browser-based interface. The former may be where the cash is, but the latter helps clinch the deal.

Oh, and it has to work in Netscape 4, right?

Web development is hard. Stop cajoling us and let us use the tools we need.