3 ms·
WHATWG doesn't make a standard for HTML either. It hosts an ongoing conversation between browser vendors. Someone creating a standard from that conversation is
by ChrisSD 9y ago
WHATWG doesn't make a standard for HTML either. It hosts an ongoing conversation between browser vendors.
Someone creating a standard from that conversation is useful, although I do agree w3c's approach isn't ideal. Personally I'd suggest HTML5 "levels" where level 1 would be fixed in stone (until HTML6) and higher levels are considered increasingly unstable.
- digi_owl 9y agoThese days it feels like Google is the one writing the "standard" simply by throwing stuff into Blink that alternative engines ignore at their peril.
- Bahamut 9y agoGoogle doesn’t quite have that power - some of the things they have pushed have failed to gain traction, sometimes for very good reasons. For example, Object.observe was a proposal that Google themselves eventually unshipped from the Chrome after the JS ecosystem roundly rejected adopting the paradigms it enables, most notably for React’s unidirectional data flow (it always felt like a proposal meant specifically to optimize Angular). Google also backtracked on Web Components, choosing to revise the spec after some ideas became awkward when combined with the emergence of ES modules. The other browser vendors play an incredibly meaningful role, as well as the frontend web developer community at large.
- realusername 9y agoThey already tried that in CSS with browser vendor prefixes (-moz, -webkit, ...) but unfortunately temporary features tend to be used forever so it did not work well.
- sitkack 9y agoBrowsers need to have maps from vendor prefixes to standardized way of doing things. If an upgrade path isn't possible, the page needs to throw a warning back to the originating server in a GET request at a well known endpoint.