So does HTML really stand for Hating on Twitter Markup Language?

That's the impression at least some programmers were left with after having their attention drawn to an element within the official HTML specification -- 4.10.7.2.8 The maxlength attribute - that veers from the straight-and-geeky normally found in such documents to take a swipe at Twitter and its infamous 140-character message limit.

(2011's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries)

The broadside was penned in 2009 but caused a minor stir only two days ago when posted to the programming section on social-bookmarking site Reddit, a community that boasts some 340,000 subscribers. Most of the 341 comments generated by that post - titled "I just noticed the HTML specification has a nice, subtle jab at microblogging (whatwg.org) -- were of the Twitter-sucks-no-it-doesn't variety, but a number took exception to the "childish" use of a technical document as "a soap box."

Others noted that the jab was anything but subtle.

As for the jabber himself? Ian Hickson, longtime editor of the HTML specification, tells me he doesn't hate Twitter at all and suggests that those objecting to his editorializing might want to lighten up.

Here's what riled the Redditors in 4.10.7.2.8 the maxlength attribute (emphasis mine):

The following extract shows how a messaging client's text entry could be arbitrarily restricted to a fixed number of characters, thus forcing any conversation through this medium to be terse and discouraging intelligent discourse.

What are you doing? <input name=status maxlength=140>

Harmless, you say? Me, too, but others took exception not only to the Twitter bashing but the fact it was in a specification.

"Whatwg.org is pretty childish to voice their faulty opinions within documentation."

"Yep, there's pseudo-hipsters everywhere you look. You give any dweeb a computer and a soap box, and they're suddenly the great arbiter of taste."

"God, programmers get so catty. Kitty's got claws."

Still others at least got with the spirit of Twitter:

"Seriously, they geeks and nerds with they thick glasses need to chill out and microblog a little. Relax, poindexters. #Bieber #Idol"

"I really don't see what the problem is. All this hate on Twitter. It's perfectly possible to convey a coherent exchange of thoughts without "

And then there was the tangent about the origins and meaning of the 140-character limit:

"Maybe I'm missing something, but the phrase 'arbitrarily restricted' comes up pretty often in regards to Twitter, when it seems clear to me -- and I thought most everyone -- the limit isn't arbitrary at all. The messages are meant to be short enough to fit into a single cell phone text message, which is the backbone of Twitter."

That one got intense.

I asked HTML editor Hickson via email if he had anything to say to those who believe he chose the wrong venue to express his distaste for Twitter. His reply:

"I have no distaste for Twitter. They're just taking the joke too seriously. :-)"

He says this is the first time anyone has expressed any objection to the wording.

I also asked him if his opinion of Twitter has changed since 2009.

"Not particularly, though for unrelated reasons I do use it less now (it was taking up too much of my time)."

And, finally, I asked if such editorializing is common within the HTML specification:

"You'll have to read the spec to find out. :-) "

Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent buzzblog items. And, if you’d like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here’s where to sign up. Follow me on Twitter here.