Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 287 posts

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#181

Post by WorldMaker »

goto11 wrote: post #161
boomlinde wrote: post #48

Earlier 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. You certainly could lay out pages using tables in XHTML, but the point of the standard in the first place was to enable semantically sound documents for the sake of interoperability and to facilitate separation of concern…

XHTML documents have exactly the same semantics as HTML. Neither is more semantically sound than the other. XHTML just defined a slightly different syntax which was XML compatible. This was useful if you were using XML tools, but it didn't affect semantics at all.

XHTML 2.0 was very different from HTML semantically. Some of its tags (ARTICLE, SECTION, MENU, etc) wound up smashed into HTML5 later and became semantically meaningless again, but XHTML 2.0 tried to be more semantically sound than HTML and is a large part of how W3C lost the war to HTML5, because semantics are hard and most of the browsers didn't care about semantics.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#182

Post by mrguyorama »

inlined wrote: post #99
austincheney wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect at least part of the reason is to build a high barrier to entry and preserve the monopoly That is far too grand a motive. The reality is that the average web developer has a shelf life of about 5 years or is primarily focused elsewhere, such as Java or C#. That said consider the people who do this work with 100% focus. These people are typically not the same developers who are performing graduate level st…

And yet, I can build world scale cloud systems but can’t build a web front end anymore to save my life. I’m blown away by the sheer complexity that has evolved in frontend code. Developers there have such a broad toolset and arcane knowledge about how you really need to combine two CSS traits on surrounding containers to get the positioning you want. Unfortunately, in our industry, most engineers think the layer abov…

And Rube Goldberg machines are engineering marvels, but we shouldn't laud the engineer who builds one to transport a part from here to there when a "simple" conveyor belt does the job just fine.

How much of that complexity was necessary? How much of it was chosen to boost someone's CV?

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#183

Post by WorldMaker »

cygx wrote: post #108
tannhaeuser wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this connection of XHTML and semweb. The preamble to the original XML spec reads as follows: > The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a subset of SGML that is completely described in this document. Its goal is to enable generic SGML to be served, received, and processed on the Web in the way that is now possible with HTML. XML has been designed for ease of implementation and for interoperability with bot…

I don't see this connection of XHTML and semweb XHTML continued the spirit of HTML 4 strict, getting rid of presentational elements and replacing them with 'sematic' ones. Eventually, you were also supposed to combine it with RDF to embed machine-readable metadata into your documents (cf https://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML%2BRDFa ).

Also, XHTML 2 tried to push people to tags with defined semantics like ARTICLE, SECTION, MENU, etc. Most of the tags exist now in HTML5, but their semantics were neutered in the transition.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#184

Post by mcchampion »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #61

On the one hand, good. On the other, it seems like just complete capitulation by the W3C; WHATWG makes all the real decisions still, W3C now performs important administrative services for free, turning the "living standard" into an actual usable standard, without actually having any meaningful power over the results. WHATWG gets to do the part that matters without having to do the hard part, W3C does the hard part fo…

W3C did try to balance multiple constituencies for HTML, but it couldn't find consensus among them, and broad consensus is the basis for its authority. WHATWG didn't so much take control of the standards process as recognize that what actually works on the web defines the "stadard"

It's not a capitulation, it's a way to exert influence in a world that respects rough consensus and running code more than formal processes and authority. Under the agreement, W3C has the power to ratify (or not) changes to HTML/DOM that align with the needs of its broad community for accessibility, internationalization, privacy, security, etc. The agreement provides a way for experts in those "horizontal" areas to participate more effectively in WHATWG to get improvements made upstream, rather than downstream in what amounted to a fork.

And yes, W3C provides the service of providing vetted snapshots of the Living Standards into more formal standards that governments and other standards bodies can reference and ratify. That's adding real value for some constituencies.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#185

Post by Sargos »

stephenr wrote: post #145
irrational wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are saying that the senior leadership at Google is evil, but the developers in the trenches are more benign in their intentions.

AMP, WebUSB, WebBluetooth all indicate otherwise.

What are they doing to harm WebUSB and WebBluetooth?

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#186

Post by Cyberdog »

egeozcan wrote: post #120
mynegation wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are already downvoted into oblivion and rightfully so, but I just wanted to add my perspective as a backend developer (and the one who did post-graduate level mathematical stuff at that) who now manages a team of back and front end developers and plays with front end development for toy projects. The sheer amount of complexity and required knowledge for front end development is simply baffling to me. These folks…

Totally agree. Also: I'm strongly against calling people "Front-End Developer" or anything like that at all. Where does front-end start? Where does it end? What is full-stack, does it imply you can do embedded? I've seen many listings that count PHP as one of the front-end requirements. This is just a term that should make the HR's job easier, and it does that badly.

We web devs actually have pretty solid definitions for "front-end," "back-end," and "full-stack." The back end deals with work on the server done after an incoming HTTP request comes in and involves preparing the HTTP response, including preparing the outgoing data for the templating layer if applicable (eg, when doing web page responses rather than JSON, XML, or binary responses). The front end deals with building templates such that that data becomes a standard web page, using CSS to style that page, and using JavaScript to implement client-side interactivity. A full-stack developer will be constantly switching between work from both sides of this divide rather than primarily focusing on one or the other.

If a job listing for a front-end developer is expecting applicants to know PHP beyond a "writing templates" level, it's either a poorly-written job listing or its creator has unrealistic expectations of its applicants - sadly, neither case is very uncommon in this industry.

At any rate, someone calling themselves a full-stack developer isn't implying they can do embedded, as that sort of stuff is pretty far afield of web development.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#187

Post by jrochkind1 »

mcchampion wrote: post #184
jrochkind1 wrote: post #61

On the one hand, good. On the other, it seems like just complete capitulation by the W3C; WHATWG makes all the real decisions still, W3C now performs important administrative services for free, turning the "living standard" into an actual usable standard, without actually having any meaningful power over the results. WHATWG gets to do the part that matters without having to do the hard part, W3C does the hard part fo…

W3C did try to balance multiple constituencies for HTML, but it couldn't find consensus among them, and broad consensus is the basis for its authority. WHATWG didn't so much take control of the standards process as recognize that what actually works on the web defines the "stadard" It's not a capitulation, it's a way to exert influence in a world that respects rough consensus and running code more than formal process…

If they choose "not to ratify" something... will it have any effect on browser behavior at all? I don't think so. It'd just be a standard none of the relevant software cares about. Pretty useless to anyone. (Much like current W3C html standards...)

Seems to me W3C will straight up be acting as administrative staff for WHATWG, providing free labor to do the "hard parts" of providing a useful standard, without much decision-making ability.

Without much decision-making ability is indeed the status quo. Now they're providing some free labor too. But it's certainly less pointless than what they were doing before, so.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#188

Post by BinaryIdiot »

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I'm all for progress that may eventually lead to W3C's complete irrelevance. I've talked with folks at the WHATWG before, _Anyone_ can provide input and work with them. With the W3C it's, what, like $30k for the cheapest option and that barely gets you in the door. The W3C is too expensive to ever let small businesses or individuals have impact.

I'd love to see more groups like the WHATWG specifically for this reason.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#189

Post by cygx »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #178
cygx wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't come from print design by any chance? You've not been doing that whole web design thing for very long, by any chance? Those of us who have been around for a while do remember the inadequate layouting capabilities of CSS of bygone eras. While I was on the semantic markup side of the debate at the time, it's not as if the pragmatists that just went with the table for convenience's sake did so for no reason at…

I started web design for lynx browser, back when using pine for email was hot, then moved on to Mosaic and NN. There's a clear body of web design/dev people that think it's just a visual display medium, and a lot of those seem to come from print design. The web for me has always been primarily a medium for information transfer, visual design is nice but not at the expense of semantic markup; table markup for visual l…

My mistake, then. Point is, you didn't need to start off in print design to end up with certain attitudes under discussion. Customers demanded it, and you can only do so much trying to convince them otherwise.

For another, wishing for a certain amount of control over the layout seems like an entirely reasonable demand to me (eg you should not need to jump through hoops just to place something in the center of the viewport).

Lastly, if we're being honest, how much has semantic markup improved the web experience in practice, and how much did layout tables hurt us? When I used to do web design, I was a good citizen, avoiding layout table and arguing for semantic markup. But nowadays, I'm far more forgiving, though I still think there's some value in it insofar as proper markup can improve the screen reader experience.

Re: W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

#190

Post by skybrian »

chrisseaton wrote: post #86
giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect at least part of the reason is to build a high barrier to entry and preserve the monopoly, keeping out competitors, given who the people in these groups work for. A lot of what happens in someone like Chrome implements something not yet standardized, then it gets standardized in a different way, or Mozilla implements something and Chrome implements it differently from the standard, perhaps to try and reac…

> Sure the core team works for Google, but they make all the decisions, not Google. If the core team works for Google then Google is making all the decisions. A company is the people working there making the decisions. A company can't make decisions without the people there doing so.

Yes, it's about the people! The point is that Google isn't a monolith, decision-making happens at all levels, and people working there have different, often conflicting opinions and are not necessarily thinking strategically like a CEO. I mean, sometimes they are, but without reading internal design docs that we don't have access to, you can't get good insight into their motivations.

This means that decision-making is less consistent or deterministic than many people pretend. Things happen because someone advocated for it and other people gave in. The outcomes of internal political decision-making are not necessarily predictable. Speaking of "Google" making a decision is usually misleading.

Post reply on HN