5 ms·
I'm not sure the intent of your comment; failure to track what browsers actually do is exactly the problem with the WHATWG "living standard" – it's very much a
by colanderman 9y ago
I'm not sure the intent of your comment; failure to track what browsers actually do is exactly the problem with the WHATWG "living standard" – it's very much a forward-looking spec at best, and too often a wishlist.
- ubernostrum 9y agoThe ideal situation is for the WHATWG document to be a roadmap of what vendors have discussed and tentatively agreed on, and the W3C document to be a periodic snapshot of what's actually been implemented. That wouldn't make either one of them "bad". The issue here seems to be W3C wanting to push forward things that the vendors haven't agreed on or implemented yet.
- mcchampion 9y agoI don't think the W3C DOM document has anything the developers haven't agreed to. The problem is that it's an incomplete, intrinsically out of date, and often buggy subset of the the WHATWG living standard. I agree that the W3C value proposition COULD be to publish a snapshot that describes what's actually implemnted. That might be a way forward here, but it requires a lot of work to define what "actually implemented" means in a useful way, and to check the test results and update the document (or build an automated way to harvest resources such as https://wpt.fyi/dom https://wpt.fyi/dom ).