Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
1–10 of 386 posts
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#2When is W3C going to formalize their standards?
It's one thing to write down "user agent should do such and such" and quite another thing to formalize it.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#3That’s a flamey title. They’re objecting to them publishing their spec before the negotiations with WHATWG are over.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#4That’s a flamey title. They’re objecting to them publishing their spec before the negotiations with WHATWG are over.
They're objecting to the simultaneous existence of two DOM standards, to the procedure used by W3C to move forward on the W3C's standard, and to substantive issues in the W3C's fork. Each of the objections refers to the W3C's DOM spec as a "fork". The objectors are members of the WHATWG steering group. The title seems about as neutral a description as can be written.
This is a hazard of posting into message threads rather than articles and blog posts, but "all the mainstream browser vendors object to a W3C standard" seemed interesting enough an event to override that concern.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#5For some clarity:
- Mozilla's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380771954
- Apple's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/175#issuecomment-380534425
- Microsoft's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/176
- Google's Objection: https://github.com/w3c/dom/issues/177
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#6It's sad to see the relationship between WHATWG and W3C has deteriorated to this point. Trying to wrangle a standard from a "living" (i.e. constantly changing) specification was always going to be tough but I'd have hoped both WHATWG and W3C would be able to maintain a working relationship.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#7It's sad to see the relationship between WHATWG and W3C has deteriorated to this point. Trying to wrangle a standard from a "living" (i.e. constantly changing) specification was always going to be tough but I'd have hoped both WHATWG and W3C would be able to maintain a working relationship.
Is there an article with the background on this? Why do we have both the W3C and the WHATWG, and why do the W3C just copy and paste work from WHATWG, if that is indeed what happens?
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#8That’s a flamey title. They’re objecting to them publishing their spec before the negotiations with WHATWG are over.
They're objecting to the simultaneous existence of two DOM standards, to the procedure used by W3C to move forward on the W3C's standard, and to substantive issues in the W3C's fork. Each of the objections refers to the W3C's DOM spec as a "fork". The objectors are members of the WHATWG steering group. The title seems about as neutral a description as can be written. This is a hazard of posting into message threads r…
I think it's perfectly fine to post message threads on HN. I would much rather read the source then a summary written by someone else.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#9It's sad to see the relationship between WHATWG and W3C has deteriorated to this point. Trying to wrangle a standard from a "living" (i.e. constantly changing) specification was always going to be tough but I'd have hoped both WHATWG and W3C would be able to maintain a working relationship.
Is there an article with the background on this? Why do we have both the W3C and the WHATWG, and why do the W3C just copy and paste work from WHATWG, if that is indeed what happens?
Some history here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#History
- https://annevankesteren.nl/2011/02/html-development
- https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11
- https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/when-standards-divide/
Differences between the W3C HTML 5.2 spec and the WHATWG Living Spec: https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/W3C-WHATWG-Differences
Re: Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec
#10It's sad to see the relationship between WHATWG and W3C has deteriorated to this point. Trying to wrangle a standard from a "living" (i.e. constantly changing) specification was always going to be tough but I'd have hoped both WHATWG and W3C would be able to maintain a working relationship.
Is there an article with the background on this? Why do we have both the W3C and the WHATWG, and why do the W3C just copy and paste work from WHATWG, if that is indeed what happens?
The W3C was the original standardization organization for the web.
They wanted to create standards that allow easy implementation by others, and were willing to make some tradeoffs with backwards compatibility for that (see XHTML).
The browser vendors obviously oppose this, and want standards that just formalize what they already implement. As result, the browser vendors created their own standards committee, which standardizes whatever the browsers already do (if existing). This is the WHATWG.
As result, the web standards situation has gone to insanity. The WHATWG URL spec contains 4 pages of pseudocode and algorithm definitions for how Chrome parses URLs, and how you should as well, and the W3C, still being relied on by the other actors on the web that aren’t the 4 largest browsers, has to copy the WHATWG spec as base for their own specs, because browsers will ignore whatever the W3C says anyway.
But remember that the WHATWG proposed to the W3C that the W3C should copy the WHATWG specs as base for their own specs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#cite_note-9