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

HTML 5.2 Recommendation

w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 188 posts

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#21

Post by sureaboutthis »

magnat wrote: post #14

What's the point of removing features such as "menu" from HTML standard? If there are browsers supporting it and webpages using it, would Mozilla (or Google or Microsoft) actually remove those features just because newest standard said so? I mean: marquee was deprecated long ago, yet browsers still render it correctly.

has never been part of any HTML standard, ever. It is listed as an obsolete feature in the HTML5 standard for the point of making it obsolete (a weird reason) but not mentioned anywhere else since time began.

I don't recall the reasons for removing

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#22

Post by gsnedders »

vog wrote: post #19
ChrisSD wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHATWG is for browser vendors. It's in a constant state of flux as new changes get proposed and those proposals get changed through implementation. The W3C is for web authors. It presents a more stable recommendation and provides advice (based on research) for authors.

I tend to disagree with both points. > The W3C is for web authors. It presents a more stable recommendation and provides advice (based on research) for authors. Web authors usually use MDN instead, because it serves that purpose in a much better way. (Note that despite the name MDN is not Mozilla specific but a cross-browser resource, and that Microsoft and Google recently joined MDN.) > The WHATWG is for browser ven…

> The W3C recommendation is no different in that regard, they also describe stuff that's not fully implemented in all browsers yet.

Note for a W3C document to go to Recommendation there must be two interoperable implementations. Of course, that doesn't mean any browser has implemented any of it, just that someone has implemented each part of it.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#24

Post by gsnedders »

vog wrote: post #7
rwmj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who have not been paying attention for a decade, what's the relationship between this revision and WHATWG?

I hope this doesn't sound too snarky, but as far as I know, the WHATWG standard is live, consistent and always up to date (including corrections), while the W3C recommendations are outdated snapshots of the WHATWG standard, which are labeled by arbitrary version numbers instead of the snapshot timestamp, for whatever reason. EDIT: Apparently even that description was too charitable towards the W3C (see gsnedders comm…

They stopped really doing snapshots of the WHATWG standard a while ago when they moved their authoring toolchain away from what the WHATWG document uses, and now just occasionally selectively copy over patches (sometimes incompletely) and make their own changes.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#25

Post by ChrisSD »

kryptiskt wrote: post #4

"Although we have asked them to stop doing so, the W3C also republishes some parts of this specification as separate documents."

> 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.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#26

Post by vog »

gsnedders wrote: post #24
vog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope this doesn't sound too snarky, but as far as I know, the WHATWG standard is live, consistent and always up to date (including corrections), while the W3C recommendations are outdated snapshots of the WHATWG standard, which are labeled by arbitrary version numbers instead of the snapshot timestamp, for whatever reason. EDIT: Apparently even that description was too charitable towards the W3C (see gsnedders comm…

They stopped really doing snapshots of the WHATWG standard a while ago when they moved their authoring toolchain away from what the WHATWG document uses, and now just occasionally selectively copy over patches (sometimes incompletely) and make their own changes.

Thanks for the update!

But is that actually an improvement over the previous situation? (Serious question.)

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#28

Post by oblio »

ChrisSD wrote: post #25
kryptiskt wrote: post #4

"Although we have asked them to stop doing so, the W3C also republishes some parts of this specification as separate documents."

> 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.

I think the point here is not about the legality but more about the ethics of doing so, in this case.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#29

Post by igravious »

rwmj wrote: post #6
taspeotis wrote: post #3

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

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.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#30

Post by gsnedders »

vog wrote: post #26
gsnedders wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stopped really doing snapshots of the WHATWG standard a while ago when they moved their authoring toolchain away from what the WHATWG document uses, and now just occasionally selectively copy over patches (sometimes incompletely) and make their own changes.

Thanks for the update! But is that actually an improvement over the previous situation? (Serious question.)

> But is that actually an improvement over the previous situation? (Serious question.)

No, it means we have two increasingly different documents purportedly defining the same things, and when they do copy patches over they've failed to also copy over other dependent patches too on a number of occasions leaving their spec as defined unimplementable.

Post reply on HN