SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
W3C and the WHATWG Sign an Agreement to Collaborate on a Single Version of HTML and DOM:
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has decided to join forces with the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) so there is now hope we may eventually have a single, comprehensive agreement for what is valid HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) and how the DOM (Document Object Model) should be defined.
Today W3C and the WHATWG signed an agreement to collaborate on the development of a single version of the HTML and DOM specifications. The Memorandum of Understanding jointly published as the WHATWG/W3C Joint Working Mode gives the specifics of this collaboration. This is the culmination of a careful exploration effective partnership mechanisms since December 2017 after the WHATWG adopted many shared features as their work-mode and an IPR policy.
[...] Motivated by the belief that having two distinct HTML and DOM specifications claiming to be normative is generally harmful for the community, and the mutual desire to bring the work back together, W3C and WHATWG agree to the following terms:
- W3C and WHATWG work together on HTML and DOM, in the WHATWG repositories, to produce a Living Standard and Recommendation/Review Draft-snapshots
- WHATWG maintains the HTML and DOM Living Standards
- W3C facilitates community work directly in the WHATWG repositories (bridging communities, developing use cases, filing issues, writing tests, mediating issue resolution)
- W3C stops independent publishing of a designated list of specifications related to HTML and DOM and instead will work to take WHATWG Review Drafts to W3C Recommendations
So how does this fit in with the obligatory xkcd?
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:52AM (6 children)
The fantastic thing about standards is that we have so many of them to choose from so they are proposing a standard that changes over time?
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:33AM (5 children)
Well, HTML changed from 4 to 4.1 to 5 ... so I would imagine that continued development will produce new snapshots of the "living standard".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:40AM (3 children)
How can you make sure you get the freedom to design something properly and beat your competitor to the market? By "living standards" of course and being part of the team to create it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:18PM
Write the code then write the documentation. That way the code always matches the documents. *
* From a wise old tech writer
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)
I'm not concerned about these two organizations competing with anyone but each other.
If you think "living standards" are bad, does that mean you think a standard should be written once and never evolve? No new versions ever? Do we delay things for years (or decades) to ensure our one shot is perfect, or do we just put it out and hope technology doesn't change?
BTW, you (and everybody else) have zero "freedom" to design something properly if you are adhering to standards (living, concrete or abandoned). You give up "freedom" in order to gain compatibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @08:02PM
Spoken like someone who never had to work in a private company as an employee.
Is it False Dichtonomy or Strawman? Hm...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:39PM
Not exactly. "Living standard" is douche-speak for "tied up in litigation".
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:03AM (4 children)
A unified definition of shit is still shit.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:34PM (1 child)
It will be okay as long as it is suitably polished prior to official release.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RS3 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:57PM
The market is strong, time to start a turd polish manufacturing facility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:21PM
What is the chance that the single standard won't include ALL the WORST features from both sources? Negative? Thought so.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:53PM
It's not like anyone will adhere anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:29PM (2 children)
Shouldn't it be possible - and better from an engineering point of view - to make the two orthogonal? One standard to define the meaning of elements in a hierarchical tree (html) and one to manipulate said tree (dom) [and one of course to rule them all, but that is, as always, Google]. The dom does not have to know about html as a validator (which is based on html alone) can tell whether a proposed manipulation is valid of not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:09PM
Ain't DOM its own standard maintained by WHATWG anyway?
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday May 31 2019, @03:50PM
My take is that one standard maps HTML to a screen representation, that way you can know how any given HTML with any standard browser. (The age of HTML defining semantics and allowing the user to define how to represent those semantics is gone.)
The other standard maps HTML to code objects, that way you know that any given EMCAScript that builds a DOM, that DOM will serialize to the same HTML for any given browser. Once you standardized both. You can count on the mapping from EMCAScript DOM to onscreen representation on any standard browser.
It's a compatibility play. But yes, you could have different mappings for how things should render and you can have different mappings for how those things round trip when serializing. You just need to make sure you implement it for every possible mapping combination out there. Or just tell your users to download chrome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:32PM (1 child)
WHATWG == WHATWhereditGo
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:06PM
When having a talk where going where haters are taking working groups we have a terrible walled garden: We have almost Thanos'd working groups with huge amorphous terminology wastelands, going where humans absolutely talk weird / gross with horrendous acronyms that weren't good.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:48PM (4 children)
The summary can be summarized in two words:
W3C surrendered.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:25PM (3 children)
Yup, translated from the Black Speech it says W3C will cease and desist all activity and merge their current projects into the WHATWG and their page says: WHATWG (Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft) so four lawful evil aligned corporations now control the web.
(Score: 2) by Chocolate on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:53PM (1 child)
Is nothing sacred anymore? Can this be fixed?
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:41PM
Creating a separate no-JS web? 🤔
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday May 31 2019, @03:53PM
Why wouldn't they surrender? Mozilla surrendered the open web when they picked up EME. What's W3C got left to fight for? The web is chrome. Firefox development is staled excepted for attempts to keep up.