Sounds like a recognition of WHATWG as the master, with W3C becoming more of a publishing / vetting organization for snapshots of the standard?
Or it could be a relationship similar to that between the IAB and IETF
W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
21–30 of 287 posts
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#22Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard about the WHATWG before. And for everybody like me, that acronym stands for "Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group".
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#23Earlier 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.
But no browser maker recognizes the W3C standard or claims to implement it, so what good is it?
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#24Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard about the WHATWG before. And for everybody like me, that acronym stands for "Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group".
WHATWG is basically the browser vendors sidelining W3C to discuss what features HTML etc should have. The news today is that the W3C finally accepted that situation.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#25Remember, 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.
As someone deep in the markup world, I'd say thank god XForms didn't make it, though I don't know Mozilla started WHATWG, let alone for promoting XForms of all things (Mozilla/Netscape once introduced JavaScript). WHATWG was Ian Hickson's (of Google) project, started out very successfully in adding capabilities to the web, but sadly turned into an instrument for browser monopoly.
As for validation, you can parse/validate all published versions of HTML, including W3C HTML 5, 5.1, and 5.2 using SGML and my SGML DTD grammar(s) [1] for HTML 5.x. SGML (ISO 8879) is the original markup meta-language on which both HTML and XML are based. XML was once started as a subset of SGML (dropping tag inference/omission, SGML-style empty elements, attribute shortforms, and other features requiring DTD declarations for the concrete markup language to parse).
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#26Extremely condensed version: W3C is giving up publishing future HTML and DOM standards. They will focus on writing 'recommendations' for the WHATWG's living standards. Versioned vs living HTML discussions aside, I personally admit some mild sadness that the original group responsible for maintaining Sir TBL's work on HTML has been forced to give up.
These are the same people who created XHTML, an ivory tower idea nobody was waiting for... who didn't support the most popular layout method at the time, tables, in their new styling language CSS.
W3C became irrelevant because they kept thinking they could just tell the entire web what to do, that they'd make enormous technical investments to satisfy the W3C's latest fashions.
I interacted with them once, over their seamless iframe proposal. I had to point out that the two biggest uses of iframes at the time, i.e. Twitter embeds and Facebook apps, could not make use of it, despite being a perfect fit. They just hadn't considered that.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#27Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard about the WHATWG before. And for everybody like me, that acronym stands for "Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group".
WHATWG is basically the browser vendors sidelining W3C to discuss what features HTML etc should have. The news today is that the W3C finally accepted that situation.
It's not like anybody of us voted for W3C either (so it's not like one body is the "legitimate" one and other is not).
And the W3C had stalled progress so much in the 00s and 10s, that it deservedly got sidelined.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#28Extremely condensed version: W3C is giving up publishing future HTML and DOM standards. They will focus on writing 'recommendations' for the WHATWG's living standards. Versioned vs living HTML discussions aside, I personally admit some mild sadness that the original group responsible for maintaining Sir TBL's work on HTML has been forced to give up.
These are the same people who created XHTML, an ivory tower idea nobody was waiting for... who didn't support the most popular layout method at the time, tables, in their new styling language CSS. W3C became irrelevant because they kept thinking they could just tell the entire web what to do, that they'd make enormous technical investments to satisfy the W3C's latest fashions. I interacted with them once, over their…
> who didn't support the most popular layout method at the time, tables
I can do tables just fine in XHTML. And luckily, tables have become redundant as layout technique, since CSS would do that, already then.
The nice thing with X(HT)ML is, that you can place queries against any document, natively.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#29Remember, 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.
As someone deep in the markup world, I'd say thank god XForms didn't make it, though I don't know Mozilla started WHATWG, let alone for promoting XForms of all things (Mozilla/Netscape once introduced JavaScript). WHATWG was Ian Hickson's (of Google) project, started out very successfully in adding capabilities to the web, but sadly turned into an instrument for browser monopoly. As for validation, you can parse/vali…
> WHATWG was Ian Hickson's (of Google) project
But WHATWG would've never flew if not him getting those dissenting Mozilla devs on board
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
But no browser maker recognizes the W3C standard or claims to implement it, so what good is it?
That no browser maker recognizes W3C's standard is a bit misleading. MDN (i.e. Mozilla) quotes the w3c recommendations all over the place.
Google, from what I found around, cites nothing, not even WHATWG.
Webkit cites MDN (which cites w3c) as a source.