4 ms·
> There are those of us who need to develop against a stable feature set. Can you explain what you mean here more? The HTML standard doesn't break compatibilit
by Touche 10y ago
> There are those of us who need to develop against a stable feature set.
Can you explain what you mean here more? The HTML standard doesn't break compatibility, if that's what you mean, because of course that's not possible. So I suspect you mean something else; can you explain?
- tannhaeuser 10y agoSure. For example, WHATWG has recently removed scoped styles from HTML (don't know if this change made it into W3C's HTML 5.1), and probably for a good reason. Now you could say scoped styles were never in a published "standard", and rightly so; but that's kindof the problem, because WHATWG never publishes or commits to anything. Say you have contractual obligations to deliver HTML; had you used scoped styles, you're now in for some extra work to replace it with something else.
- gsnedders 10y agoI can't remember off-hand, but scoped styles shouldn't have made it into 5.0's Recommendation (one of the requirements for CR to PR advancement is showing each feature has implementation experience), though if it did it wouldn't be the only one that made it through into HTML 5.0 despite the W3C process. As for the WHATWG, I don't believe that any feature without implementer support has landed in the WHATWG HTML spec in several years now, and I think there's a clear intention to keep it that way, so there shouldn't be featured that never get implemented in the spec.
- tannhaeuser 10y agoThis was just an example, please don't take it as criticism. The point, though, stands, and is illustrated by the fact that I can't even use a permalink to a version of the WHATWG HTML spec that still has scoped styles defined (at best, you can point to a ancient bikeshed or anolis commit). Which is why WHATWG HTML isn't a "standard".