So W3C is signing to confirm their irrelevance?
FWIW, w3c publishes and standardize a lot more than just HTML and DOM. So calling it irrelevant seems a bit of a stretch.
W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
11–20 of 287 posts
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't W3C just leave it to WHATWG entirely? Why do we need two groups involved? Why should I put any value in what W3C recommends? What would they ever recommend instead of WHATWG?
> Why should I put any value in what W3C recommends? For the same reason you put any value in, e.g., ISO or ANSI. Because others recognize them as the standard organization and put value in what they recommend.
[deleted]
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#13Sounds like a recognition of WHATWG as the master, with W3C becoming more of a publishing / vetting organization for snapshots of the standard?
I guess it's more a recognition of the limited resources of both W3C and WHATWG, of the fact that there's a need for a "real" fixed-in-time and versioned document describing HTML rather than a collaboration workspace (WHATWG's "living standard") and W3C's choice to not die on the particular hill of redacting WHATWG texts. Though practically speaking, W3C HTML 5.2 (the last completed recommendation) was sponsored by The Paciello Group and MS before that, and with MS' withdrawal from browser development they also gave up redacting W3C HTML to fit IE's features set. I would love to be corrected by an insider, but that's what I could make up from publically available info.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#14So W3C is signing to confirm their irrelevance?
Indeed, and so will Mozilla do once Google and Apple decide that they no longer need them to legitimise WHATWG.
Mozilla execs dug a ditch for W3C, but fell in it themselves. Mozilla set itself on this trajectory once they stopped their backing of W3C.
The only point of Firefox was it delivering quick, glitch free, standard compliant web. With web standards becoming defunct, it is there no more.
But hey, Mozilla execs can keep assigning themselves high six digit salaries...
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#15W3C will now publish a Recommendation instead of a "version" as such. The Recommendation will be from a "Review Draft" published by WHATWG, this draft will then go through the W3C process (Candidate Recommendation → Proposed Recommendation → Recommendation). And then there is patent exclusion ( What? ) Anyway I don't see anything new to developers. Apart from the politics and two parties bury the hatchet.
Why don't W3C just leave it to WHATWG entirely? Why do we need two groups involved? Why should I put any value in what W3C recommends? What would they ever recommend instead of WHATWG?
W3C still has lots of standards and some WGs are working fine, like CSS and accesibility. WHATWG is too much browser focused IMHO, W3C tried to be more broad with things like RDF, SPARQL, EPUB, SVG, ...
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#16Sounds like a recognition of WHATWG as the master, with W3C becoming more of a publishing / vetting organization for snapshots of the standard?
I guess it's more a recognition of the limited resources of both W3C and WHATWG, of the fact that there's a need for a "real" fixed-in-time and versioned document describing HTML rather than a collaboration workspace (WHATWG's "living standard") and W3C's choice to not die on the particular hill of redacting WHATWG texts. Though practically speaking, W3C HTML 5.2 (the last completed recommendation) was sponsored by T…
As far as I'm aware, MS continued to be involved with the W3C HTML much longer than other browsers due to the W3C patent policy, which the WHATWG only had any equivalent of as of December 2017.
Note also the W3C specs weren't really redacted versions of the WHATWG spec, especially in later years: they were pretty much complete forks and moving changes between them non-trivial.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#17Remember, WHATWG began with childish rant of few Mozilla engineers about w3c stalling xForms. 13 years later now, did they get what they want?
No, no xForms, no xhtml, no strict validation, nothing.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#18I still maintain that the "living standard" is an oxymoron. It's a collaborative browser dev document. Don't get me wrong, that's great. However for everyone else an unversioned document, any part of which can change at any moment, is not what's usually thought of as a standard.
It isn't great at all, because even that living standard is never being implemented up to spec, often by the same people who wrote it, and the current browser support status usually ends up being "what's written in bugzilla"
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#19Is WHATWG pronounceable?
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#20So W3C is signing to confirm their irrelevance?
No, the W3C publishes a lot of standards apart from HTML and DOM, and they would still be somehow involved here too.
However, it is indeed sad that the HTML spec is now controlled by browser makers only, and the editors are mostly from just one company.