51–60 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those who have not been paying attention for a decade, what's the relationship between this revision and WHATWG?
In the interests of completeness. “HTML Living Standard — Last Updated 13 December 2017” https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ I've been telling students that the W3C develops and maintains the HTML spec. Looks like I'm dead wrong. Oops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright © 2017 WHATWG (Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ > You are free to: > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format > Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
You can ask someone to stop doing something legal. I'd hate to live in the sort of world where you can't. HN moderators would send the police after you to seize your laptop if you make bad comments. The only way to get your roommate to stop eating your plums would be to charge them with larceny. Every relationship would end with a restraining order, or it wouldn't be over. Failing to turn in a homework assignment on…
And in the quoted statement they are not saying the W3C should improve their process for forking WHATWG's work. They are saying the W3C shouldn't fork their work at all. So despite their specifically chosen license (with easy to understand layman's summary) are WHATWG against all forking? Or are they simply against the W3C?
I wish WHATWG would properly version their work. I don't like the idea of a "living standard" because it leads to checking for individual functionality and feature detection, rather than being able to say, "This is fully HTML 5.x.x compliant." Regardless of the state of W3C, if I built an embedded renderer based on their specs, I could at least say, "this renderer is based on and link to the recommended spec version.…
But that's the point - web authors are supposed to use feature detection instead of writing to a particular standard version. It turns out to be a better model for large interfaces. Yes, in theory, you can ask "Is this OS POSIX.1-2008-compliant or not." In practice, it takes a while to e fully POSIX.1-2008-compliant, and so you get autoconf, with its individual feature detections of specific function. Less clean, but…
nope, html needs to stop. it's a document markup language and shouldn't be used for apps.
I wish WHATWG would properly version their work. I don't like the idea of a "living standard" because it leads to checking for individual functionality and feature detection, rather than being able to say, "This is fully HTML 5.x.x compliant." Regardless of the state of W3C, if I built an embedded renderer based on their specs, I could at least say, "this renderer is based on and link to the recommended spec version.…
But that's the point - web authors are supposed to use feature detection instead of writing to a particular standard version. It turns out to be a better model for large interfaces. Yes, in theory, you can ask "Is this OS POSIX.1-2008-compliant or not." In practice, it takes a while to e fully POSIX.1-2008-compliant, and so you get autoconf, with its individual feature detections of specific function. Less clean, but…
As far as I can tell the only way to author a compatible web page these days is by checking every damn feature of HTML you use against some humongous table like Can I Use? before assuming your audiences' browsers support it.
Compare to versioned specs, where I need simply determine the minimum spec version supported by my target audience (and any exceptions to the spec) and code against that spec.
There is some utility in naming sets of well-supported features...
Wasn't HTML 5 supposed to be the last explicit version and then it would be a living standard without changing the version number?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Full story here: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_... tl;dr: Ignore w3c's HTML "standards" as they are (often poor) copies of WHATWG's standards.
> WHATWG's standards I my opinion one cannot call something a "standard" that changes every few days. EDIT: In this sense W3C's HTML 5.x can be considered a rather badly authored (cf. other comments here) standard, while what the WHATWG releases is not something that even measures up to a standard, but it is the daily version of how HTML is supposed to be today.
So, WHATWG is in constant flux, and W3C has about as much authority as I do. _Thankfully_ in practice WHATWG is "stable enough," but just saying that's what "we" consider a good enough standard for something used in creating all sorts of UIs, from trivial to vitally important, is indicative of a bigger problem.
(Consider: Apparently, MS-Word docs or PDF prove longer lived than basic HTML documents! Who would have thought of this?)