4 ms·

> WHATWG is basically the browser vendors sidelining W3C to discuss what features HTML etc should have. One way of looking at it is who has final say what ends

> WHATWG is basically the browser vendors sidelining W3C to discuss what features HTML etc should have. One way of looking at it is who has final say what ends up in the documents. That seems to be what you're discussing. In the W3C, that's the Director, Tim Berners-Lee. Except, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, he has delegated all his decision-making powers to W3C staff. So ultimately it is the W3C CEO and the folks he hires. In the WHATWG, that's the browser vendors (i.e., the WHATWG Steering Group). I find the WHATWG model to make more sense, as I think what ends up in specs should match what the implementers plan to do; that makes for a more useful spec ecosystem for everyone. When you diverge too far from that model, you get circa-20004 W3C, i.e. XHTML 2, XForms, XEvents, etc. A different way of looking at it is who contributes to the discussion and development of features. In the W3C, that's paying member companies (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees https://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees, $2.25-$77k/year in the US). Although anyone can comment on GitHub, to contribute ideas that get incorporated into the specification, you need to be a W3C member, for IPR reasons. (Or invited expert, but that has its own problems; see https://medium.com/@tobie/w3c-doesnt-help-its-invited-experts-it-should-2fb36ae9f720. https://medium.com/@tobie/w3c-doesnt-help-its-invited-expert...) In the WHATWG, anyone can contribute; the IPR concerns are taken care of by signing an agreement, somewhat like an open-source project CLA, but that agreement does not require paying membership fees. Overall, I think the WHATWG structure, of being open to input from all (instead of pay-to-play), with the spec tracking what browsers intend to implement (instead of tracking what W3C staff deems good), is a pretty great model for standardization.

hungryfoolish 7y ago
>Overall, I think the WHATWG structure, of being open to input from all (instead of pay-to-play), Thats not entirely fair. The WHATWG is also pay-to-play in a way - the browser makers have disproportionally higher power, even more so than the w3c model where there is at least some form of consensus forming among a group of people with more international representation. Now technically anyone in the world can open a github issue (w3c also does it though now), but thats about what anyone can do to oppose something in the spec that the browser makers have their hearts set on.
- domenicd 7y ago
  Hmm, you seem to have skipped over some of my points. The WHATWG is open to input from all, but only things browsers are willing to ship get into the specs. So yes, that's more power. No disputing that. But I would rather not have specs full of unimplemnted fiction, even if that fiction has consensus among paying member companies. The W3C is not open to input from all. If you open a GitHub issue contributing an idea, but do not pay member fees, they cannot incorporate your idea into the spec, because of Intellectual Property Rights concerns. There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year.
  - gsnedders 7y ago
    > There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year. Or, as you mention up-thread, get invited into the group by the chairs and with consent of the W3C staff. Which… is an opaque process, and totally non-obvious to an outsider.
  - frivoal 7y ago
    > The W3C is not open to input from all. If you open a GitHub issue contributing an idea, but do not pay member fees, they cannot incorporate your idea into the spec, because of Intellectual Property Rights concerns. There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year. This is not true: https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#contributor-license https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#contributor-licens...
tannhaeuser 7y ago
You can look at theoretical process improvements all you want, but the reality is that the WHATWG process has driven Opera and MS out of producing core web browser tech alltogether, and prevented countless unnamed innovative browsers from being even considered, let alone developed, out of sheer infeasability to develop a browser from scratch. Worse, it doesn't help that the WHATWG "living standard" process is setup to never end, and never produce a final spec of sorts, contributing further to the problem. WHATWG fails to realize that they cannot represent the browser vendors left (Google and Google-financed Mozilla) having a desire for ever more webapp contamination, and web users and authors at the same time who want a stable content media format. Also, I have to say your comment doesn't sound very promising wrt the future WHATWG/W3C relations being anounced.

hungryfoolish 7y ago

>Overall, I think the WHATWG structure, of being open to input from all (instead of pay-to-play), Thats not entirely fair. The WHATWG is also pay-to-play in a way - the browser makers have disproportionally higher power, even more so than the w3c model where there is at least some form of consensus forming among a group of people with more international representation. Now technically anyone in the world can open a github issue (w3c also does it though now), but thats about what anyone can do to oppose something in the spec that the browser makers have their hearts set on.

domenicd 7y ago
Hmm, you seem to have skipped over some of my points. The WHATWG is open to input from all, but only things browsers are willing to ship get into the specs. So yes, that's more power. No disputing that. But I would rather not have specs full of unimplemnted fiction, even if that fiction has consensus among paying member companies. The W3C is not open to input from all. If you open a GitHub issue contributing an idea, but do not pay member fees, they cannot incorporate your idea into the spec, because of Intellectual Property Rights concerns. There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  > There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year. Or, as you mention up-thread, get invited into the group by the chairs and with consent of the W3C staff. Which… is an opaque process, and totally non-obvious to an outsider.
- frivoal 7y ago
  > The W3C is not open to input from all. If you open a GitHub issue contributing an idea, but do not pay member fees, they cannot incorporate your idea into the spec, because of Intellectual Property Rights concerns. There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year. This is not true: https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#contributor-license https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#contributor-licens...

tannhaeuser 7y ago

You can look at theoretical process improvements all you want, but the reality is that the WHATWG process has driven Opera and MS out of producing core web browser tech alltogether, and prevented countless unnamed innovative browsers from being even considered, let alone developed, out of sheer infeasability to develop a browser from scratch. Worse, it doesn't help that the WHATWG "living standard" process is setup to never end, and never produce a final spec of sorts, contributing further to the problem. WHATWG fails to realize that they cannot represent the browser vendors left (Google and Google-financed Mozilla) having a desire for ever more webapp contamination, and web users and authors at the same time who want a stable content media format. Also, I have to say your comment doesn't sound very promising wrt the future WHATWG/W3C relations being anounced.