Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec

Post by cwyers » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:06 PM UTC

saas_co_de wrote: post #250

jsgo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case: 1a) Why would it matter that Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and/or Apple object to W3C DOM 4.1 if they don't implement it? 1b) Why would Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and/or Apple care enough to object to W3C DOM 4.1 if they aren't implementing it? Why would they even give any effort to a competing specification and just allow it to die from inactivity? 2) Why does what is in W3C DOM 4.1 matter if the…

Exactly. They don't want any competing products so preventing the development of a standard they don't control is obvious.

Post by Klathmon » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

blablabla123 wrote: post #281

Klathmon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'd need to handle accessibility considerations, and font and encoding support, and a flexible layout engine, and multiple input methods, and scrolling, and search engine standardization, and more all yourself. By the time you handle most of it, all you've done is make a wildly more complicated version of the DOM.

Not sure about that. I mean a number of video games have been successfully recompiled to JavaScript, e.g. Doom or Quake 3. I guess you one would need to be able to target some sort of Framebuffer, Frameworks like Qt know how to do that already. Probably I prefer "native" Web Apps over recompiled "native apps" but like it or not, this will come more and more as people ask for more performance and more variety of progr…

Post by _fq4v » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

lambda wrote: post #265

_fq4v wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I only use obscure type-safe functional programming frameworks. That's what I'm employed to do, and this obviously impacts my feelings on the matter. Personally, I think it's irresponsible to use anything that could be this unsafe. This doesn't mean everyone needs to use FP, just that frameworks and libraries should be chosen so as to guarantee safety. There are easy-to-use libraries for all these things…

I agree with you that we do need to do better about writing more robust software, and type safe languages are a good way to do that. But what you're saying is as if you suggest that since the metric system is more consistent and more widely used than the English, I as a bolt distributor should start selling my bolts in metric sizes, despite the fact that the nuts that everyone has are in English sizes. The browser ve…

Post by jhanschoo » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:32 PM UTC

saas_co_de wrote: post #247

colanderman wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. The TL;DR seems to be that, instead of sticking to documenting what is , the W3C is (either deliberately or through incompetence) trying to push their own "vision" for DOM 4.1 without browser buy-in.

Tldr is that corporations don't want a standards body with any public input so they created their own competing body, strangled w3c, and are now saying w3c is limited to being a rubber stamp for the standards they create.

Post by ubernostrum » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #296

ubernostrum wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web standards are supposed to be de jure, not de facto. HTML5, in large part, was created to do exactly the opposite -- formally set down in writing all the de facto quirks of HTML as actually used, parsed and rendered in the real world, instead of continuing to prescribe behaviors which didn't match observed reality.

You and I lived a different history then, because if what you're saying is true, then ActiveX should have been standardized. We've got no ActiveX, so your claim is false. Mozilla actually could implement ActiveX. They refused to do so. Also, lets not forget that IExplorer 6 had incompatibilities with the standard, including XMLHttpRequest, even though Microsoft invented it.