4 ms·
> Leave the business of documenting what browsers actually conform to to the W3C. Documenting the prevailing conditions is very much not the purpose of a stan
by ghostly_s 9y ago
> Leave the business of documenting what browsers actually conform to to the W3C.
Documenting the prevailing conditions is very much not the purpose of a standard.
- ttepasse 9y agoThat is the governing philosophy of the WHATWG, sadly.
- annevk 9y agoThat's a bit of a stretch. This is only relevant to legacy APIs and only when all implementations are in agreement, which is quite the rarity.
- colanderman 9y agoThat's what the W3C has historically done, with HTML 2.0, 3.2, and 4.0. "Document, clean up, and nudge" is maybe a better description. The WHATWG today seems to take more of a "document, don't clean up, and add our wishlist" approach. (The "don't clean up" mentality is embodied in their "don't break the web" ethos; the "add our wishlist" mentality is a consequence of the "living standard" ethos… the "standard" never becomes reality because it is constantly changing.)
- annevk 9y agoI'm not sure where you got this impression, but it's wrong. https://whatwg.org/working-mode https://whatwg.org/working-mode stipulates the requirements on additions. That's quite a bit different from a set of wishes. And there's a lot of cleanup of legacy APIs happening too. E.g., removal of the isindex tag and deprecation of AppCache.