Joel wrote, as usual, a thoughtful and witty article on the web, standards, interoperability and the upcoming mother of all flame wars; this is a must-read for everyone concerned with web-related software development (web designers, web programmers, information architects, marketeers…) .
As usual, the idealists are 100% right in principle and, as usual, the pragmatists are right in practice. The flames will continue for years.
Joel goes into a lengthy explanation, driven by an extra-terrestrial catchy case study, of what are the possible “cardinalities” of “market standards” (One-to-One - all is fine and simple, One-to-Many - yet fine, Sequence-to-Many - a story of pain and backward compatibility, Many-to-Many - you know, PurePain ™), why a standard without a reference implementation it’s not that standard, and why in the long run being conservative in what you do, and being liberal in what you accept from the others potentially ends in deployment issues kicking your conservative yet liberal butt. In the meanwhile you get also acquainted with some real-world compatibility issues between rabbis from different ultra-orthodox communities:
If you’ve ever visited the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities of Jerusalem, all of whom agree in complete and utter adherence to every iota of Jewish law, you will discover that despite general agreement on what constitutes kosher food, that you will not find a rabbi from one ultra-orthodox community who is willing to eat at the home of a rabbi from a different ultra-orthodox community. And the web designers are discovering what the Jews of Mea Shearim have known for decades: just because you all agree to follow one book doesn’t ensure compatibility[…]
As a very brief personal memorandum: Real Standards must have Real Reference Implementations (because “reality siphons off excess complexity“1) and although Postel’s Robustness Principle is (imho) still much valuable for the wide spread of the internet/web it has been able to sustain so far, it should be carefully balanced - “in medium stat virtus” - with having very, very strict standards and “components” positively obnoxious about pointing them all out to you; maybe we (as developers/engineers) should resort to some sort of “carrot and stick” principle.
NOTE 1: The full citation from David H. Gelernter’s Mirror Worlds (a wonderful and fascinating book narrating a vision of computing and information of extraordinary elegance - that is by other words a good combination of simplicity and power) is:
“Information structures are, potentially, the most complicated structures known to man. Precisely because software is so easy to build, complexity is a deadly software killer.
The same problem exists for hardware machines, but it lacks comparable significance. Physical reality is the overflow valve that siphons off excess complexity before the whole system blows.[…]”.
