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

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#31

Post by ChrisSD »

oblio wrote: post #28
ChrisSD wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It just amuses me that they're effectively saying that anyone can fork this for any reason... except for the W3C.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#34

Post by wolfgke »

dmitriid wrote: post #11
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?

Full story here: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_... tl;dr: Ignore w3c's HTML "standards" as they are (often poor) copies of WHATWG's standards.

> WHATWG's standards

I my opinion one cannot call something a "standard" that changes every few days.

EDIT: In this sense W3C's HTML 5.x can be considered a rather badly authored (cf. other comments here) standard, while what the WHATWG releases is not something that even measures up to a standard, but it is the daily version of how HTML is supposed to be today.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#36

Post by scardine »

oblio wrote: post #28
ChrisSD wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is debatable if it is unethical given the license but it is definitely a disservice for the community.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#38

Post by detaro »

pjmlp wrote: post #15
detaro wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. W3C HTML5 standards are merely following/copying what WHATWG and the browser makers are doing, with little actual relevance.

The relevance it that W3C HTML5 standards are supposed to already be stable everywhere, while WHATWG and the browser is a guessing game of what actually works and behaves the same way everywhere.

I've never seen anyone reference it in that way, which doesn't mean nobody does, but was the basis for my wording of "little actual relevance". (Admittedly, going to either HTML spec is not something that's needed very often for most devs, since most changes happen in other specs (CSS, web platform APIs at W3C, ...) and/or are widely documented outside, but while I've had occasional discussions involving quotes from the WHATWG spec, W3C HTML5 spec hasn't been referenced at all)

For the question "is this supported widely enough", caniuse.com + your local traffic stats is in most cases more relevant than inclusion in some spec or not.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#39

Post by andrewmcwatters »

I wish WHATWG would properly version their work. I don't like the idea of a "living standard" because it leads to checking for individual functionality and feature detection, rather than being able to say, "This is fully HTML 5.x.x compliant."

Regardless of the state of W3C, if I built an embedded renderer based on their specs, I could at least say, "this renderer is based on and link to the recommended spec version. Whereas if I did that with the living standard href, I'd be out of date any time they decided to rename an attribute.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#40

Post by geofft »

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.

You can ask someone to stop doing something legal. I'd hate to live in the sort of world where you can't. HN moderators would send the police after you to seize your laptop if you make bad comments. The only way to get your roommate to stop eating your plums would be to charge them with larceny. Every relationship would end with a restraining order, or it wouldn't be over. Failing to turn in a homework assignment on time would lead to a court date. Buying more than ten items in the express lane would get you arrested for fraud.

If that isn't the world you want to live in, let's get rid of this idea that just because I have no interest in the government stopping you from doing a thing by threatening violence (and that's all a license is - a statement that the following activities are not copyright infringement), I'm totally fine with you doing the thing.

Post reply on HN