4 ms·
I hadn't seen this before - it's horrifying. Right up the top it declares that its intent is to _obsolete_ the existing RFCs - and then just breezily drops thi
by eponeponepon 9y ago
I hadn't seen this before - it's horrifying.
Right up the top it declares that its intent is to _obsolete_ the existing RFCs - and then just breezily drops this in: "As the editors learn more about the subject matter the goals might increase in scope somewhat."
Honestly, I'm gobsmacked. I really hope nobody's taking this document seriously.
- kuschku 9y agoWelcome to the WHATWG standards. The only ones who have any say in WHATWG are the large browsers, and most of the power is with Google. Their concept is also not to standardize new stuff, but to always only describe what the largest browsers (often simply Chrome) do.
- partycoder 9y agoIt may be bad but unfortunately it's the closest to a serious/workable standard nowadays regarding URLs.
- concede_pluto 9y agoAll you need to know about WHATWG is that the monstrosity they're billing as "HTML" has neither version numbers nor a formal grammar.