3 ms·
I don't mind a changing standard as long as two people can agree on exactly which version of the standard they're talking about and actually use that version.
by kijin 7y ago
I don't mind a changing standard as long as two people can agree on exactly which version of the standard they're talking about and actually use that version.
I should be able to build my web app against an LTS version of the standard and expect it to behave identically in all future versions of all major browsers, until the EOL date of said version, no matter what changes they make in future versions. I want this for the same reason I want either CentOS or Ubuntu LTS, not Arch, on my production boxes.
Unfortunately, the whole HTML 5.1/5.2/5.3 business never quite caught on, and browsers don't support anything but the latest snapshot of whatever it is that they call a standard.
- duskwuff 7y ago> Unfortunately, the whole HTML 5.1/5.2/5.3 business never quite caught on... Because that was an artifact created by W3C by taking snapshots of the WHATWG HTML5 standard and making arbitrary changes to portions they didn't agree with. Since the WHATWG standard was already considered normative by most browser makers, the influence of the W3C's "standards" work here was essentially nil.
- AgentME 7y ago>I should be able to build my web app against an LTS version of the standard and expect it to behave identically in all future versions of all major browsers, until the EOL date of said version, no matter what changes they make in future versions. That's already true of HTML5. Breaking changes in standardized features almost never happen. HTML5 actually goes further than what you suggest: they aim to never have breaking changes.