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

321–330 of 386 posts

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

#321

Post by colanderman »

tptacek wrote: post #280
colanderman wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said. What rubs me the wrong way about the WHATWG is that they give the perception (and it may be just that) that they are trying not just to serve as that forum for browser makers, but also as the standard reference for web developers (which is the role the W3C HTML specs, save XHTML 2, have historically served), and doing a poor job of the latter.

Exactly what is the purpose of a standard reference for web developers that fails to track the documented behavior of browsers?

I'm not sure the intent of your comment; failure to track what browsers actually do is exactly the problem with the WHATWG "living standard" – it's very much a forward-looking spec at best, and too often a wishlist.

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

#322

Post by Semaphor »

wink wrote: post #258
hsivonen wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're choosing to nitpick about the fact that most sites published would not have worked if served as application/xhtml+xml, I'd invite you to do a survey of sites currently being served as valid HTML5. Completely different thing. XML processing and all reasoning based on the premise of XML processing are fiction when XHTML is served as text/html. The HTML parsing algorithm and tve rest of the processing requir…

Because someone asked and it explains some of the history quite nicely. FWIW, maybe I'm the 1% but I wrote valid XHTML 1.0 for a while, but also soon gave up :P

I did server side browser sniffing to give IE the version it understood (IIRC it couldn't handle well-formed XHTML served with the proper mime tag, not sure, it's been a while :D) while everything else got proper fully compliant XHTML. I'm pretty sure I used a code snippet from Anne van Kesteren who is also posting here ;)

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

#323

Post by fourthark »

lucideer wrote: post #228
jerf wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so by lucideer's quirky definition of "XHTML", the vast majority of the web moved to XHTML. Based on the expansiveness of lucideer's definition, this appear to have encompassed web developers who probably weren't even aware they were writing "XHTML". By the definition that most of us are using, which is that XHTML is complaint XHTML that could be rendered without error in browser's XHTML modes, to a first approxi…

> by lucideer's quirky definition Which also happens to be the definition the w3c xhtml 1.0 spec. You can choose to think that's quirky, please don't attribute it to me. > definition that most of us are using, which is that XHTML is complaint XHTML that could be rendered without error in browser's XHTML modes Which, again, is the definition used in the later w3c xhtml 1.1 & 2 specs, the former which wasn't widely use…

You're taking about the ease of validation. Everyone else is talked about the ease of writing.

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

#324

Post by BinaryIdiot »

domenicd wrote: post #307
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what is the purpose of the W3C in this case? Many years ago I tried to get a membership to the W3C as I wanted to provide a voice for a company I worked for (and for myself, honestly) but found out that the lowest level of membership was many thousands of dollars. How can anyone who isn't already very well established ever be properly represented there? Then you check out WHATWG and, as far as I can tell, there…

Yeah, we try to make the WHATWG a welcoming place for all, with no pay-to-play structure. Please feel free to provide your voice there! We've gotten a lot of good community contributions and ideas.

Thanks. I plan though :)

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

#325

Post by mattur »

dooglius wrote: post #60

I'm not too knowledgeable on the background here, or on how the politics of standards organizations work, but my understanding is that the EU standards bodies (presumably as well as similar organizations for other governments) consider the W3C to be authoritative. Even if all the browsers prefer WHATWG's spec, won't they be forced to adopt W3C in the same way phones have to support USB charging[0]? [0] https://en.wik…

The W3C's HTML standard is a buggy, outdated copy of the upstream WHATWG standard.

In the copy-and-paste process the W3C regularly introduces errors which prevent the W3C copy from being used as an implementation reference, even as an outdated standard. Example: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/257

So the W3C copy is not authoritative, nor can it be in its current state, regardless of what the EU or anyone else says.

The WHATWG standards are the authoritative implementation references. The W3C specs are buggy, outdated, incomplete copies and that looks unlikely to change for HTML, DOM or any other specs the W3C takes from WHATWG and republishes with the W3C logo.

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

#326

Post by kbrosnan »

carwyn wrote: post #210

Surely W3C and WHATWG would periodically branch and freeze a version of living standard? Possibly defining some elements as optional or extensions much like OpenGL or Vulkan? It seems crazy that they proposal introduced changes to what was already established common practice.

The problem is that it is not a fast freeze. It goes through the full W3C process[1] WD > CR > PR > recommendation. When I looked at W3C html 5.2 there had been 10k changes to the WHATWG spec from the date of the 5.2 branch to the date of the 5.2 release.

The W3C allows changes that are incompatible with the WHATWG spec see DBaron's comments in the GitHub issues.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/proce...

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

#327

Post by mattur »

monkeynotes wrote: post #21
hacknat wrote: post #3

That’s a flamey title. They’re objecting to them publishing their spec before the negotiations with WHATWG are over.

If you read the thread there's an exchange with the CEO of W3C that is a touch 'flamey'. I think the title perfectly describes what I was reading, really interesting peek at the machinations behind the tech standards we use every day.

The machinations behind this have being going on for years, and go much deeper.

Two chairs of the W3C's Web Platform Working Group, who both also happen to be members of the W3C Advisory Board which oversees the W3C Process, appear to have decided it's fine for them to routinely ignore the W3C Process.

Both these individuals seem to be using their positions in the W3C to pursue some kind of personal vendetta. Of course, in theory the W3C Process exists to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

One of these individuals also happens to be a W3C ex-staffer. You can read a somewhat unfavourable summary of this ongoing farcical situation (by a current W3C staff member) here: https://freenode.logbot.info/whatwg/20160614#c998179

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

#328

Post by ajnin »

They're (W3C) actually citing the EME precedent as an example of when the W3C went forward without consensus to justify their position on this. If this is the direction the W3C is going then it has ceased to serve the interests of the web and I'm guessing it is on a short path to irrelevance.

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

#329

Post by AgentME »

riquito wrote: post #172
Sharlin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the web quickly moved to XHTML. This simply is not true. The web moved to an XHTML-like dialect of HTML which was still served as text/html and browsers interpreted it as "HTML soup" because actually serving pages as application/xhtml+xml would have broken the majority of the web because browsers would actually validate them and refuse to display a page at all if there was even a single missing close tag.

And you couldn't use target="_blank" in anchors...

I remember the fierce battle in my mind trying to judge whether I wanted a proper strict xhtml page, or I wanted external links to open in a separate window... This was literally what drove me away from strict xhtml. Everything else I was on board for at the time.
Post reply on HN