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

381–386 of 386 posts

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

#381

Post by spiralx »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #275
gsnedders wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Way back in the day, HTML was implemented as an application of SGML. [citation needed] I'm unaware of basically any implementation of HTML treating it as an application of SGML; the only notable case I'm aware of is the old HTML validator. Tim's original implementation of HTML didn't treat it as SGML.

> I'm unaware of basically any implementation of HTML treating it as an application of SGML; the only notable case I'm aware of is the old HTML validator. Plugging my XML Prague 2017 paper on a SGML DTD for W3C HTML 5.1 here [1]. [1]: http://sgmljs.net/blog/blog1701.html

I was looking for that earlier, it's a fascinating paper, thanks! :)

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

#382

Post by Hello71 »

chias wrote: post #375
Hello71 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Handbook was interesting in that it was one of the few sites that actually went with the XML + XSLT = XHTML route. Of course, nobody knows XSLT, and everyone hates XML, so it was dumped in favor of MediaWiki, which everyone still hates, but at least now mostly understands how to use. (although the same people that insisted we use XML+XSLT also insisted we use SMW, which is even worse... I gave up then, but I hear…

Interesting! What's SMW? I'm not familiar with the term and searching for it isn't being particularly helpful.

Semantic MediaWiki

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

#383

Post by ksec »

DannyBee wrote: post #104
JeremyBanks wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[edit: maybe entirely wrong? see reply.] USB-C was enthusiastically coinvented by Apple, not forced on them. They just let the standards orgs lead publicly to get broader suppot.

This is definitely not accurate. Apple didn't get on board until well after the connector and other things had been just about finalized. The price of making that connector a standard that Apple was willing to use was not pointing out it was made by a staunch competitor. I don't even think they were attending meetings. (Gruber said something completely and totally wrong about this, which is usually the source of peop…

Because I find it rather hard to believe USB group actually design the plug that is reversible.

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

#384

Post by ksec »

c-smile wrote: post #157
scarface74 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you look at the list of members? Who on the list is going to be building their own browser and what would the business case be? Out of the big four, only two of them even thought it made sense to build a browser from scratch. Apple and Google started off with KHTML. EDIT: To clarify. Who is going to be building their own rendering engine instead of taking an existing one - 3 of the 4 are open source - and buildin…

"Who is going to be building their own rendering engine instead of taking an existing one" Just for the note: I did - https://sciter.com It was not meant to render all possible pages from Wild World Web but it renders HTML5/CSS3 (some subsets but still).

Holy Crap that is bloody impressive!.

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

#385

Post by bzbarsky »

kuschku wrote: post #349
bzbarsky wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason there is a URL standard in the WHATWG is that the IETF URL RFC didn't define error handling and this led to interop problems. So there was a need for a URL standard that _would_ define error handling. The IETF refused to produce one (basically said "fuck you, we don't care about your use cases or interop problems" with slightly more polite wording), so the WHATWG ended up doing it... I'm not saying th…

The first line of the WHATWG URL spec says that it deprecates and replaces all IETF URL standards.

For its target audience (browsers and web pages) it does.

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

#386

Post by solarkraft »

lonnyk wrote: post #289
quink wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was confused as well, as Apple literally invented . I think what he meant to say was "Remember that Apple just went ahead and implemented the Canvas tag. [without waiting on any standards organisation]"

Yeah, I agree w/ your reading of the paragraph.

(sorry)
Post reply on HN