I didn’t wake up today with the intent of revisiting old ground, but a motivated commenter rekindled the topic of Opera’s EU filing encouraging Microsoft to be forced to adhere to a series of guidelines for web standards, and my bold statements that both Microsoft and Opera needed to work on adhering to those guidelines.

As I was crafting a response, I discovered that I had more to say on the topic than could be rationally contained in a simple comment.

First, some facts: I don’t dislike Opera. I dislike hypocrisy. Also, I don’t like Internet Explorer. I hate Internet Explorer, and I would prefer to see Microsoft adhere to modern web standards with the same fervor as the other major browser makers.

However, the responses to my earlier posts made by Opera employees and by others on behalf of the browser maker, amount to the following two statements.

1. Microsoft needs to adhere to Mr. Lie’s list of rules they should play by because Microsoft is a monopoly. Opera does not need to do this because it is not.

2. Opera is justified in delaying implementations of “new” features because they’re focusing on backwards compatibility and not breaking the web.

Each is interesting, but ultimately unconvincing.

First, I don’t believe that implementing web standards and new site features is solely the responsibility of a company that is a monopoly. In his well publicized list of rules for Microsoft, Mr. Lie agrees with me. I’ve already quoted the fifth point (relating to adding a new standards-related feature to a browser if two major browsers have already implemented it), and have pointed out useful features that at least two browsers have implemented that aren’t live yet on Opera. I want to emphasize where Mr. Lie states these rules aren’t just for Opera:

“Microsoft will surely claim that it’s impossible for them to develop a browser that complies with the proposed requirements. However, other browsers have played by these rules for years. If Microsoft can’t live up to the standards of the web, I suggest they leave the browser business.”

His assertions are twofold, first that other browser makers do play by these rules (including Opera I presume, which exclusively makes a browser), and that failure to adhere by these rules is enough reason for a company to leave the browser business.

I agree with him completely. I find it comical that some of Opera’s employees apparently do not, and have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why they should be disregarding their CTO’s wisdom. This ties directly into point #2, which is that implementation of new features must be delayed as a necessary sacrifice to maintain backwards compatibility and not break the old web.

Backwards compatibility with the soccer mom-built sites of the world is the same boogeyman that Microsoft has been waving on a flagpole since at least Internet Explorer 6. The world of web developers have yet to give Microsoft any mercy for that, and often cry for blood when feature implementation or standards compatibility is sacrificed on that altar (such as the well documented IE8 meta-tag explosion). I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument as to why any smaller browser maker can justify their own delays at implementing “new” stuff with the same smoke and mirrors and not deserve the same treatment.

In the end, the simple fact is this: I expect better of Opera. I expect them to be better than Microsoft. This means I’m not going to accept Opera using the same excuses as Microsoft, and somehow get away with it due to their size.

So, chop chop. Back to the grindstone, boys.

On Monday I made a post over on the Mindfly blog about the travesty that is Microsoft continuing to go their own way when it comes to web standards. In particular, it appears that rather than following the standards in the CSS3 Web Fonts Module in IE8, they’re instead going to continue to push forward with EOT, their proprietary embedded font format that they’re just now beginning to open up.

And surprise, they’re expecting the rest of the Internet to follow their lead.

I’m not going to repeat in detail the rant I made on the Mindfly blog, but I can’t help but feel that despite security issues related to font embedding that Microsoft is going about things the wrong way. Does font embedding need to be secure so font makers aren’t screwed? Yes. Does Microsoft need to decide for the rest of the world what that method is? No! Whatever happened to embracing standards?

I’m curious about other people’s views on the subject. Is Microsoft’s version of @font-face (and it’s insistence upon EOT fonts) a better path than the W3C’s version of @font-face (as currently seen in Safari)? Is security a good excuse to ignore standards?

Yesterday I wrote a post at Mindfly describing how to make use of the CSS @font-face rule for embedding fonts into web pages. I figured it was timely, as I’m getting tired of the number of times I have to use an image (or putz around with workarounds like sIFR) to substitute a special header all because of a non-web safe font, or a client with very specific typographic tastes and a very poor understanding of how the web and fonts work together (or more to the point, how they don’t). Furthermore, both Firefox and Opera have intentions to add support to the feature very soon, creating a world where all four major browsers will have the function (although with IE using EOT and not TTF it won’t be all peace and happiness quite yet).

The thing is, the more I look into the topic, the more it appears that @font-face won’t going to be ushering in a Utopian society of pretty fonts. The core issue seems to be how legal is font embedding going to be, and how will typographers feel about developers putting their font files on servers in a place where they could potentially be snatched?

So far the answers seem to be ‘not very’ and ‘not good’, respectively.

Which makes me wonder, what good, if any, will @font-face actually serve us. If, as a solution, it creates only another problem, a legal problem, that standards themselves can’t fix, is it worth the effort investing into this path to web fonts? Perhaps browser people should be looking into another technique that’ll prove to be more secure for the font files. Something that won’t look good on paper but results in a lot of angry mail from lawyers.

Although, it does make me wonder. Is there a technique that could be used with the current @font-face rule that would still protect the fonts?

@font-face. Good? Bad?

I’m not going to write a massive post on the topic, as much more eloquent people than I already have. However, I’ll explain the essence of it. Twitter user Arial Waldman described recently in her blog the harassment she’s received via that service. Harassment that violates Twitter’s Terms of Service, mind you. Yet when she continued to file reports to the company about her harassment, eventually finally talking to the CEO himself, Twitter did the opposite of what one would expect. They refused to ban the user, and instead are merely changing their TOS.

Twitter is a fun, useful service. But if it allows itself to become a place where harassment (pretty lewd stuff, at that) is allowed, then I can’t imagine it’ll stay in use forever. Wake up, guys, you need to protect your users.

[Edit: Two new things I've learned since this entry went up. First, Arial is part of the Pownce team. While I won't say outright that working for the competition could have been a factor, it does bring the validity of the situation into question. Secondly, as Twitter team members stated, both sides of the story hadn't been told and they offer their viewpoint of the situation here. I don't know what to make of the situation, but it's clear that if harassment is happening that Twitter needs to follow up on their threats and ban such people.]

Let’s get the disclaimers out of the way.

This week’s comic is not about Microsoft. The history of Internet Explorer’s many issues with standards compliance is well documented elsewhere, including various frustrations listed in this blog and in many of my posts over at Mindfly.

This week’s comic is about expecting a certain standard from someone when you are not living up to those standards yourself. In this case, of course, I’m discussing web standards and the big flap they cause in the development/design world due to the various browsers’ speeds at implementing them.

If you’re a designer, and you’ve ever had to make a website trying to find out how to make a website look correct in Internet Explorer, than you understand how important web standards are. It saves us time, which means it saves businesses money, and ultimately all the happy little people surfing the web get to see their favorite website about cute puppies the way that the site’s designer intended it.

So when someone says: “Hey, browser makers, get on board with styles already,” I’m going to be right there holding a sign and trying to pretend that protesting in the middle of winter in Seattle isn’t cold and demoralizing.

Everything in moderation, though. When Opera went to the European Commision to try to force another browser maker to change it’s feature set through legal actions, we start to muddy the line between “good activism” and “bad business behavior”. When Håkon Wium Lie, Opera’s CTO, then at several different points (including in this article/rant at The Register) outlines a very specific, detailed list of what Microsoft needs to do in order to be compliant to Opera’s view of a browser maker’s responsibility, things go from bad business to hypocrisy.

Why hypocrisy? Simple. Mr. Lie’s little list is incredibly specific, as expected of a programmer, and includes several points that must (his word) be adhered to. The one of most interest to me at the moment is the closing one:

“5. Commit to interoperability. It is important to ensure that Microsoft remains committed to supporting web standards, even beyond Acid2 and Acid3. If two or more major web browsers, in official shipping versions, add standards-related functionality that’s generally considered useful to the progress of the web, and described in a publicly available specification, Microsoft must add the same functionality.”

Is this a good idea? Why yes, yes it is! Nothing frustrates me more than finding a good CSS3 property (or CSS 2.1 property) that would solve a design issue I have with a website, only to discover that a couple of the leading browsers don’t have it, thereby making it of limited use. This is something I experience on a weekly basis (if not more frequently), and probably the largest source of frustration with my job.

However, Microsoft isn’t the only browser that needs to do this. After all, what good is it if only IE was keeping up with standards? Yes, it has the dominant share in browser usage, but there’s a good 25%-30% of users who are using other browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Opera. We wouldn’t want them suffering because their browsers aren’t keeping pace.

Generally, of the four browsers, IE is in fact the one that typically is behind the game. But while going through several CSS3 properties last week, I found myself looking at three that Opera was not yet using, but that were in use by at least two other browsers.

What’s that? Is Opera not living up to the standards it’s expecting of others? Why… that would be very hypocritical of them, wouldn’t it? They’d NEVER do that!

Well, as it turns out, yes they would.

The properties in question (and this isn’t a complete list, I’m sure, just one that came up from only an hour or so of looking) are as follows: border-radius, outline-offset, and word-wrap. The first two are implemented in Firefox and Safari. The last one is implemented in Firefox and (gasp!) Internet Explorer. All three are documented in publicly available specifications.

Opera can’t render any of them.

Now, granted, outline-offset will appear in Opera 9.5. As of yet, though, I’ve seen nary a peep about those other two, and I doubt that’ll change before 9.5 goes gold.

Frankly, Opera, you need to stop focusing on legal action against your competition. This kind of behavior is belittling, and ultimately serves as little more than a PR stunt as long as you’re failing to actually keep your own browser living up to the standards you’re yelling at others for failing to uphold.

We get it already. Microsoft sucks. Now stop poking the big dog with a stick and go grab a larger share of the market by showing everyone how cool Opera really is.