select skin: 
Add page to: 
Add page to: Add page to: If you take a look at my site you'll notice that each page has a link that allows you to check the validity of my code (whether or not the code conforms to web standards).
I go to a lot of bother to check the standards and code my site correctly and also for the maximum level of accessibility to content. I could be considered somewhat anal, and somewhat sad, but I can't not do it right once I know there is a right way of doing things. And there are a lot of people like me out there who take the effort to code all websites and web based software that they are involved in to fully meet the standards. Full compliance may not always possible within the project parameters but it the goal to which many developers aim.
Why is it then, that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) - and let's note that 'World Wide' is part of their name - has a membership of only 400 hundred companies world wide? Does that seem like a fair number? Really?! Ok. Think about this then, in most Australian cities alone there would be at least 400 (most likely more) individuals and companies that are web developers. Now does the number of members sound a little small? Of course it does.
Anyone can apply for membership to the W3C (membership is a company membership). So why then, is the number of members so small? Ah. That would be the membership fee of $57,000 USD PER YEAR (yes, I'm yelling). Let me repeat that. Fifty-Seven-Thousand US Dollars per year. Many web developers are small companies or individuals who could not afford such a membership. Therefore the membership is a form of discrimination and exclusion.
The reason why this has become such a huge bitch for me is that even though I am a firm believer in having standards, I am also a firm believer in having standards that actually make sense in the real world. I didn't just want to whinge, so I thought I'd get more involved in the standards development at an earlier stage. Hah. Yeah right. Not with that annual membership fee.
Recent standards coming out, in my view, do not appropriately reflect the needs of the real world (take XHTML 2.0, for example). The loss of the 'target' tag in XHTML 1.0 was a huge pain in the butt, a pain that can be (ironically) got around by adding javascript to link tags - before, you could create links to a designated target window with no scripts but some purist decided they didn't like targets so they went 'bye bye'.
Those 400 member companies are not the only ones who use the standards - standards are - or should be - considered by all web developers. They definitely affect all web developers, particularly now laws are being imposed where content on a site is not accessible to particular audiences - so why can't web developers have more of a say in how those standards are developed and what gets cut out in future versions and what stays?
I'm sure the W3C need to fund themselves but if they decreased the price (significantly - to put it in the reach of many of the companies and individuals that use the standards and take effort to make sure their code and products conforms to standards) they would most likely have a lot more members and - as a result - standards that met the needs of the real world. Does it really matter if the distribution of funding is shared by a greater number of companies and individuals?
While I seeth at the inequity of the W3C membership and the lack of returned support to the hundreds of smaller businesses and individuals that support them I do belive in standards and guidelines and have a number of great resources that I will share in the links section of grudknows.com.