Is WHATWG pronounceable?
I instinctively read it as "what-wee-gee"
W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
31–40 of 287 posts
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#32Maybe 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.
Yeah, I expected something like that. As the other comment mentions, I'm not sure whether to feel bad about this or not.
On the one hand, browser manufacturers now "have won" and can do what they like. On the other hand, the W3C always was kind of a toothless tiger, hoping that everybody would do as they say.
Difficult situation, not sure if this will "help the web".
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#33Extremely 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…
? Tables for layout? Seriously?
Foolishness aside it is important to understand the DOM came out of work from the XML Schema spec and for many years updates to those two documents were always released together.
The W3C isn’t irrelevant as there is more to the web than just HTML just like Oasis isn’t irrelevant for schematic design and business integration. This talk of irrelevance is a hard argument to make for many frontend developers who cant tell the difference between the standard DOM and Reacts VDOM.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Did you miss the 5-10 years during which every CSS designer tortured themselves replicating tables with floats? Google 'pure css page footer' to see the wreckage. CSS tables took years to be supported, and even then, only brought back what people had been irrationally told to stay away from. It took another 5 years for flex box to become usable, adding something actually new.
To this day, changing a site's entire design without touching its markup is a mirage. It only works in contrived scenarios with extremely artificial restrictions, and nobody does it in the real world. CSS Zen Garden was demoscene.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#35Extremely 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.
DOM v3 Document.load() https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-LS/load-save.html was the candidate for client side document loading long before most people even knew what W3C is
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#36Remember, 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
He was at Opera when it started, back in 2004.
The original W3C Workshop proposal to do Web Forms 2.0 was a Opera/Mozilla joint paper, and a few months later when the WHATWG started Apple had joined. I don't think Google's name was attached until Hixie moved to work there (admittedly not that much later).
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#37I 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"
There are very comprehensive browser support matrices at https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ (JavaScript features) and https://caniuse.com/ (DOM features).
It's only for very recently implemented features that you should need to look in bugzilla.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, I expected something like that. As the other comment mentions, I'm not sure whether to feel bad about this or not. On the one hand, browser manufacturers now "have won" and can do what they like. On the other hand, the W3C always was kind of a toothless tiger, hoping that everybody would do as they say. Difficult situation, not sure if this will "help the web".
>On the other hand, the W3C always was kind of a toothless tiger
Not really, it was, and still is, a neutral ground for people to discuss and build consensus on what technical standards should be on the web. CSS, ARIA, WCAG and many other stuff are working in the W3C pretty well.
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#39Remember, 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…
[deleted]
Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They were focused on data organization and security instead of rounded corners or querySelectors, but most frontend developers saw that as stalling.