are web standards protectionist?

2007-08-19 @ 11:05#

read an excellent post from m. david peterson on how some are dealing with a 'crisis in web standards.' along the way, peterson posits a pattern (and anti-pattern) that describes how standards *really* emerge.

...can you see a pattern in regards to how to reach critical mass as it relates to browser support and thus wide spread web adoption? If not mistaken it goes something like this,

Standardize < Adopt < Steal/Duplicate < Innovate

- NOT -

Standardize > Adopt > Steal/Duplicate > Innovate

... or in other words, the way to fix the problem is to first understand what the problem *IS*, not what it *COULD BE*.

M. David Peterson - If You Don't Know What The Problems Are, Please Don't Try To Fix Them!

as i read this, it dawns on me that there are two ways to think about this issue:

  1. define standards before things 'get crazy'
  2. define standards *after* things 'calm down'

i think the first approach is what most people think about when they think standards work. but i think the second approach is the one that has the most value. i'm pretty sure you'll see version #2 approach more often in new areas of endeavor - folks try to *recognize* the resulting standards that have emerged. however, i suspect existing standards groups skew to version #1. they (rightly or wrongly) end up adopting a posture that protects a standard that has been defined already. "Let's make sure we control this thing before somebody ruins it for everyone." also, when major investments (time, money, etc.) are made in a standard, there will be a tendency to protect the status quo rather than tolerate (even encourage) innovative change.

another case is where the standard is in a stable state and parties just don't care to deal with it anymore. this can happen in a mature standard or one that simply fades away for one reason or another. this is not always a bad thing, either. hey, if it's all OK, leave it alone. if no one really cares about this anymore, don't bother.

so some of this is a function of life-cycle. some of this is protecting investment. some is just inertia.

my final point...
keeping innovation alive is hard. and it gets harder as a community matures. that's when you need some very strong people with clear heads reminding everyone what it's all about. and, based on posts i'm reading today, it looks like we have those kind of people

more reading on this...

personal