8 ms·

HTML 5.2 is done, HTML 5.3 is coming

122 points by gmemstr 9y ago

artur_makly 9y ago
so when do we expect to see mass browser adoption of this?
- kuschku 9y ago
  That’s the {amazing|horrifying} nature of this: Web Standards are all descriptive. The standard is only written after the majority of browsers already shipped it, and enough major sites rely on it. (Of course, this means by the point that you actually get to have a discussion about standards, you can’t really change anything more, and all standards committees, from WHATWG to W3C, are just rubberstamping whatever the browser vendors want)
  - SimeVidas 9y ago
    This is not correct. Here are some common scenarios: 1. A CSS feature is in most cases specified before any of the browsers implement it. 2. Often, a HTML feature is specified (i.e., added to the HTML Standard) at the time development on it starts in a browser. This is because most browser vendors want to make sure that what they implement is in the spec, and they have people who actively work on the spec for that reason. 3. Nowadays, when a web API is proposed by a browser vendor, they write the proposal down somewhere (usually on GitHub). Sometimes it’s a formal spec, other times it’s just an “explainer.” There are probably plenty of web platform features that only have such an informal specification, but that’s fine for smaller features, I think. In any case, there is always a discussion and some written document. Browsers no longer implement web platform features behind closed doors (although Apple still, in a few cases, starts the discussion a few months before shipping the feature, but that’s more an exception than a rule).
  - domenicd 9y ago
    Here is my reply the last time this concern came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927069
    - kuschku 9y ago
      I can recommend to read this comment chain as well, IMO it shows the arguments of both sides very well (and avoids us having to re-argue this every time).
bigtones 9y ago
Don't be fooled. The W3C does not even set the standard for HTML5 - it's developed by WHATWG and then periodically the W3C just makes a copy and throws away all the GIT history and erases the acknowledgments section and publishes it to keep themselves feeling relevant. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6825713/html5-w3c-vs-whatwg-which-gives-the-most-authoritative-spec https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6825713/html5-w3c-vs-wha...
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  Oh man, how is this possibly legal? Can the WHATWG license their work in such a way as to disallow this, if you want a fixed version number to test against (which doesn’t actually make sense, as there is no reference implementation, just various browser vendors that hopefully converge on and agreed implementation) you can just fork your own version of the WHATWG html spec, which will be more inline with browsers and have further bug fixes and corrections.
  - zitterbewegung 9y ago
    WHATWG doesn't care about this because honestly its an organization where the browser vendors can tell you what they will implement. Having W3C do this doesn't influence any of the decisions that they make.
  - h1d 9y ago
    Why? WHATWG doesn't make money with the spec itself, rather want it spread to wider audience, so more are informed of the upcoming changes for smoother deployment.
    - naasking 9y ago
      Because that's just how copyright works. You can't erase attributions and redistribute without permission.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Liberal spec licensing was a deliberate goal of the WHATWG: remember that most of the WHATWG specs have been written from scratch rather than derivatives of the existing W3C specs (which W3C host organisations hold the copyright of). It ultimately gives a further constraint on relevance: be relevant, or someone will fork your spec and implementers will follow.
yuhong 9y ago
I already suggested basing the W3C spec on the web developer edition of WHATWG HTML as a compromise. In retrospect, the full spec was never a good fit for a W3C REC in the first place. (you may remember the 2022 prediction)
tobyhinloopen 9y ago
I thought we dropped the "5" and continued with just "HTML" as a living standard?
- yuhong 9y ago
  That is WHATWG not W3C. I don't like versioning HTML either, to be honest.

122 points by gmemstr 9y ago

artur_makly 9y ago

so when do we expect to see mass browser adoption of this?

kuschku 9y ago
That’s the {amazing|horrifying} nature of this: Web Standards are all descriptive. The standard is only written after the majority of browsers already shipped it, and enough major sites rely on it. (Of course, this means by the point that you actually get to have a discussion about standards, you can’t really change anything more, and all standards committees, from WHATWG to W3C, are just rubberstamping whatever the browser vendors want)
- SimeVidas 9y ago
  This is not correct. Here are some common scenarios: 1. A CSS feature is in most cases specified before any of the browsers implement it. 2. Often, a HTML feature is specified (i.e., added to the HTML Standard) at the time development on it starts in a browser. This is because most browser vendors want to make sure that what they implement is in the spec, and they have people who actively work on the spec for that reason. 3. Nowadays, when a web API is proposed by a browser vendor, they write the proposal down somewhere (usually on GitHub). Sometimes it’s a formal spec, other times it’s just an “explainer.” There are probably plenty of web platform features that only have such an informal specification, but that’s fine for smaller features, I think. In any case, there is always a discussion and some written document. Browsers no longer implement web platform features behind closed doors (although Apple still, in a few cases, starts the discussion a few months before shipping the feature, but that’s more an exception than a rule).
- domenicd 9y ago
  Here is my reply the last time this concern came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927069
  - kuschku 9y ago
    I can recommend to read this comment chain as well, IMO it shows the arguments of both sides very well (and avoids us having to re-argue this every time).

bigtones 9y ago

Don't be fooled. The W3C does not even set the standard for HTML5 - it's developed by WHATWG and then periodically the W3C just makes a copy and throws away all the GIT history and erases the acknowledgments section and publishes it to keep themselves feeling relevant. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6825713/html5-w3c-vs-whatwg-which-gives-the-most-authoritative-spec https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6825713/html5-w3c-vs-wha...

andy_ppp 9y ago
Oh man, how is this possibly legal? Can the WHATWG license their work in such a way as to disallow this, if you want a fixed version number to test against (which doesn’t actually make sense, as there is no reference implementation, just various browser vendors that hopefully converge on and agreed implementation) you can just fork your own version of the WHATWG html spec, which will be more inline with browsers and have further bug fixes and corrections.
- zitterbewegung 9y ago
  WHATWG doesn't care about this because honestly its an organization where the browser vendors can tell you what they will implement. Having W3C do this doesn't influence any of the decisions that they make.
- h1d 9y ago
  Why? WHATWG doesn't make money with the spec itself, rather want it spread to wider audience, so more are informed of the upcoming changes for smoother deployment.
  - naasking 9y ago
    Because that's just how copyright works. You can't erase attributions and redistribute without permission.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Liberal spec licensing was a deliberate goal of the WHATWG: remember that most of the WHATWG specs have been written from scratch rather than derivatives of the existing W3C specs (which W3C host organisations hold the copyright of). It ultimately gives a further constraint on relevance: be relevant, or someone will fork your spec and implementers will follow.

yuhong 9y ago

I already suggested basing the W3C spec on the web developer edition of WHATWG HTML as a compromise. In retrospect, the full spec was never a good fit for a W3C REC in the first place. (you may remember the 2022 prediction)

tobyhinloopen 9y ago

I thought we dropped the "5" and continued with just "HTML" as a living standard?

yuhong 9y ago
That is WHATWG not W3C. I don't like versioning HTML either, to be honest.