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

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 386 posts

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

#311

Post by amaranth »

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.

For the most part it was documenting the common subset of how the browsers actually worked. Only one browser implemented ActiveX or ever wanted to so it isn't in the spec.

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

#312

Post by gsnedders »

lambda wrote: post #285
domenicd wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't accurate; notably, the WHATWG is the standards body that is actually open to public input (see https://whatwg.org/faq#process ). Whereas to give input to the W3C, you have to pay membership fees ( https://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees ; between $2250 and $77K depending on company size for the US). This latter model is commonly referred to as "pay-to-play" standardization.

You can give input to the W3C without that, but yeah, it's the input from the paying members that counts the most. Additionally, the W3C has some private mailing lists, does private working group meetings, and so on. So yeah, the WHATWG is a lot more open when it comes to input.

> Additionally, the W3C has some private mailing lists, does private working group meetings, and so on.

For all the web platform stuff (I don't know about the semweb and digital publishing side of things), you can basically ignore the existence of the private mailing lists (they get basically no traffic, and people like me start screaming whenever anyone tries to have a technical discussion there). I'd rather they didn't exist, but realistically they're not a barrier to participation.

The F2F meetings and telecons are more problematic (because both are inherently exclusionary, either in time or in travel), but those are at least publicly minuted and any resolution from them can be overturned.

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

#313

Post by gsnedders »

olliej wrote: post #274
lonnyk wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you mean? According to caniuse[1] it has been supported for a while. [1] https://caniuse.com/#feat=canvas *EDIT I misread the parent. I didn't put the context for that paragraph together and read 'just' as in 'right now' instead of 'just decided to'.

The canvas tag (and canvas APIs) were first developed/shipped by Apple in tiger (so more than a decade ago) so yes, it has existed for quite a while :)

And note that the parsing of the canvas element was changed in a backwards incompatible way compared with how Apple originally shipped it. (It was originally a void element, with no closing tag, like img. It was changed to not be, which made the rest of the page vanish into the canvas element.) Standardisation isn't always plain sailing.

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

#314

Post by gsnedders »

lambda wrote: post #198
chrisseaton wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't the browser companies just entirely ignore the W3C from now on?

In part, I think it's because there is still good work that goes on under the W3C umbrella in other areas; the CSS working group has managed to stay reasonable, learn from the mistakes of some over-engineered past standards, and continues to work with implementers. Also, there are reasons to want some of what the W3C provides that the WHATWG doesn't. The W3C has many more member companies, and it can get them to sign…

> The W3C has many more member companies, and it can get them to sign off on patent rights so there's less likelihood of some one of Adobe's patents on page layout in InDesign suddenly being infringed by web browsers due to something in the spec.

The patent policy only has commitments from members of the WG who developed the spec, so only have coverage from Adobe patents if Adobe is a member of the WG. (As it happens, Adobe still has one representative within the CSS WG, who happens to be one of the chairs.)

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

#315

Post by mcchampion »

hungryfoolish wrote: post #303
lambda wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The W3C actually does do some good work in other working groups; the CSS working groups seem to be working smoothly. The W3C also oversees a lot of other standardization processes that aren't directly related to web browsers, like RDF. There are people who find this useful. I think a lot of it is a power play. The W3C wants to be relevant, and the most relevant things in the web world are HTML, DOM, and CSS (there's…

> The W3C actually does do some good work in other working groups; the CSS working groups seem to be working smoothly. The W3C is also doing work in HTML at least too. If browser makers would actually participate as editors (like they do in CSS) then it would work just as well as the CSS working groups and others.

> If browser makers would actually participate as editors

Microsoft tried that, investing in easier to use GitHub tooling to allow a wide range of people to submit pull requests to update/fix bugs in the W3C HTML standard. "If you build the field of dreams, they will come...." Nope. "They" had all gone to WHATWG ballpark, and all the W3C editors do is cherrypick (that's the actual word in the HTML 5.2 Recommendation) WHATWG's specs. It made a LOT more sense to just join WHATWG for HTML (and DOM).

> > The W3C actually does do some good work in other working groups

Right, W3C as a whole does a lot of good work. CSS is a good example, Web Payments, Web Authentication, Web Assembly come to mind as groups where a broad group really does come together and build consensus on how to solve hard problems. The HTML and DOM communities, however, have moved to WHATWG for reasons that happened long ago and apparently can't be un-done, even if a company with Microsoft's resources tries.

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

#316

Post by jancsika »

tptacek wrote: post #95
xg15 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative (and current reality) is that the same things are decided by about four companies in an entirely intransparent manner. At least the W3C had processes and a wide array of members.

Isn't that just theater? None of them can tell Apple and Google what to put in their browsers; in fact, if they can't convince just one of the big 4 browser vendors to do something, their standards have no meaning at all.

It's even more work than that-- check out caniuse for SVG fonts:

https://caniuse.com/#feat=svg-fonts

They had support in both Safari and Chrome, but never in FF or IE (nor Edge). Chrome eventually dropped the support.

So I'd say if you can't get all four to implement the feature then you might as well call that part of your spec a "living standard." Those features are going to get way fewer eyeballs, fewer bugfixes, fewer reviews, fewer pieces of documentation, etc.

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

#317

Post by currysausage »

chrismorgan wrote: post #114

Serious question: why are the W3C still publishing or trying to publish standards for DOM and HTML and probably a few others, when no one that matters cares about them? Why not rather throw in the towel on those particular standards and acknowledge that the WHATWG has won on them?

It really is all about not losing face.

W3C/TBL had “owned” HTML and DOM for way too long to just acknowledge that they botched it and that their work on that has no practical relevance any more.

“We are the organization that provides infrastructure for the standardization of stylesheets, and also some awesome-in-theory semantic web standards that are too complicated for actual implementations, and also some XML standards that are actually relevant for DTP” doesn’t seem to be the mission statement of choice for the creator of the web.

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

#318

Post by currysausage »

hungryfoolish wrote: post #304
manigandham wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do they both need to exist? I'm sure they can, since they have up till now, but what benefit is there? W3C is literally just copying the WHATWG documents so I don't see what value it's adding.

It's not just copying stuff, it's adding/editing to it. Criteria for such additions/editions seems to be browser interoperability, accessibility, internationalization etc.

Yes, in theory. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6825713/html5-w3c-vs-wha...

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

#319

Post by currysausage »

dragonwriter wrote: post #186
chrismorgan wrote: post #114

Serious question: why are the W3C still publishing or trying to publish standards for DOM and HTML and probably a few others, when no one that matters cares about them? Why not rather throw in the towel on those particular standards and acknowledge that the WHATWG has won on them?

> Serious question: why are the W3C still publishing or trying to publish standards for DOM and HTML and probably a few others, when no one that matters cares about them? There is a potential legitimate role for the two-track approach, if WHATWG represents a moving target of what browser vendors have agreed to implement and essentially is the vehicle for documenting hmthe agreed future common web platform, and W3C pr…

W3C process dictates that two implementations exist, not that all major browsers implement the whole standard. Thus, a W3C fork of the standard is of no practical use to “conservative app developers”.

If you need to target specific (probably legacy) browsers, you check caniuse.com. By the way, the WHATWG HTML standard integrates little boxes with caniuse.com data. That is indeed useful to developers.

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

#320

Post by Semaphor »

c-smile wrote: post #240
qbaqbaqba wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome! How would you compare your product to Electron?

Check this discussion: https://sciter.com/forums/topic/sciter-vs-electron/

TL;DR: It's small and performant.

But the thread is an interesting read.

Post reply on HN