3 ms·

WHATWG specs aren't "it's kind of this or that". They're more like "it's exactly X, in 20 detailed steps of excruciating detail, and if X is a legacy feature we

by om2 10y ago

WHATWG specs aren't "it's kind of this or that". They're more like "it's exactly X, in 20 detailed steps of excruciating detail, and if X is a legacy feature we're sorry that it's kind of weird. When people used to traditional standards complain about WHATWG specs, it's more often for excess precision about edge cases (including error handling on non-conforming content) and resulting lack of implementation freedom. I've never before seen anyone complain about the opposite. (To be fair, modern W3C specs are much closer to the WHATWG level of precision.) And for the actually existing web, which is best modeled as infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, you need this level of exacting precision to achieve actual interoperability.

kuschku 10y ago
> you need this level of exacting precision to achieve actual interoperability. That’s then writing a dictionary, and it’s fine, but it’s not defining a standard. As said, the one most important property of a standard is that it simplifies the existing situation, and is stricter than what came before. The W3C once produced standards, now not anymore. The WHATWG never produced standards. I mean, we can fucking standardize languages and adapt the way people spell something or the way they use grammatical constructs by law within of only a few years. If we can do it with natural language, doing it with the web is completely doable. Because languages ARE infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters.
- om2 10y ago
  WHATWG HTML and W3C HTML both define a valid syntax for content, as well as parsing rules that cover everything, even error cases. Postel's Law states: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.". Modern HTML standards codify this rule in a serious and detailed way. I think Jon Postel knows more about real standards than you do. People with your attitude are a big part of why the W3C HTML Working Group failed. It's easy to expound on what Real True Standards should be when you have no real skin in the game. Those with a real stake in the result care about what actually works instead, and have no time for this kind of philosophizing.

by om2 10y ago

kuschku 10y ago

> you need this level of exacting precision to achieve actual interoperability. That’s then writing a dictionary, and it’s fine, but it’s not defining a standard. As said, the one most important property of a standard is that it simplifies the existing situation, and is stricter than what came before. The W3C once produced standards, now not anymore. The WHATWG never produced standards. I mean, we can fucking standardize languages and adapt the way people spell something or the way they use grammatical constructs by law within of only a few years. If we can do it with natural language, doing it with the web is completely doable. Because languages ARE infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters.

om2 10y ago
WHATWG HTML and W3C HTML both define a valid syntax for content, as well as parsing rules that cover everything, even error cases. Postel's Law states: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.". Modern HTML standards codify this rule in a serious and detailed way. I think Jon Postel knows more about real standards than you do. People with your attitude are a big part of why the W3C HTML Working Group failed. It's easy to expound on what Real True Standards should be when you have no real skin in the game. Those with a real stake in the result care about what actually works instead, and have no time for this kind of philosophizing.