9 ms·

> Our vision for the future is a web that is truly a force for good ... truly international ... more inclusive ... more respectful of its users ... supports tru

> Our vision for the future is a web that is truly a force for good ... truly international ... more inclusive ... more respectful of its users ... supports truth better than falsehood, people more than profits, humanity rather than hate ... that works for everyone, because of everyone. Ok the question is how to achieve these goals and are those having failed to deliver on these goals for 28 years now according to their own words really the ones to expect solutions from, as W3C, Inc of all things. I'm sorry but all I can see is W3C, Inc. acting in their own interest, for job security. Because core web standards such as HTML are specified elsewhere (basically by random people on github, but mostly Google employees and other financially dependent people who're calling themselves the WHAT working group), leaving only CSS at W3C, and it's a fsking mess. Maybe we can get W3C to work on a formal CSS spec or, better even, a reference browser rather than la-la specs. Though I fail to see how that could be financed under either their old or new funding model.

robin_reala 4y ago
They had a reference browser, but it looks like it’s been dormant for a decade: https://www.w3.org/Amaya/ https://www.w3.org/Amaya/
- ZiiS 4y ago
  Amaya specifically disagreed we should use "Browsers"; preferring that everyone could contribute by accessing the web via an "Editor". Calling it a browser shows how far it failed to achieve that.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Nowadays, all the large browsers come with development tools that are much more powerful than Amaya (Firefox even has a developers edition that centers the UX around those tools). People still use them for debugging, not development, because the web is inherently a client-server environment that does not allow development done by the client. This is more of a "what were they thinking?" situation than we actually losing anything.
    - slim 4y ago
      the fact it's client-server does not mean there needs to be custom server development. see webdav.
    - culi 4y ago
      I think Amaya's vision is much closer to the original vision of the web though. CSS was made with the idea of each user having their own stylesheet in mind so they could browse the web however they wanted. Obviously CSS has evolved way beyond that nowadays and you need an extension on most browsers to even use something like that. But I think there's a value in a project like Amaya making these tools front and center instead of stashing them away in ways only "developers" are meant to use. I'd hope it'd cultivate a sense making the web work the way you want it to work amongst the general userbase I would actually like to see the project reborn some day
  - goto11 4y ago
    Editor-in-the-browser was re-introduced with `contentEditable` in IE6.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      No love for netscape composer?
      - anotheraccount9 4y ago
        Netscape (browser, editor, ...) was one of the best thing that came out of this period.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Netscape was bundling a full WYSIWG + markup editor with their browser in '97, a few years before IE6 came out. It was kinda separate by my recollection, but still basically felt like part of the browser, though it may have been possible to install the browser stand-alone (it's been too long, I don't remember)
  - culi 4y ago
    Well they still refer to it as a web editor, but I think it's hard for the rest of us, who've only known browsers, to catch up on that
recuter 4y ago
> I'm sorry but all I can see is W3C, Inc. acting in their own interest, for job security. It is painfully obvious that just about everybody who speaks in that certain way is primarily/exclusively concerned with their own job security. Welcome to Zombocom.
mort96 4y ago
Funny that most of those "ideals" of theirs are directly contradicted by their support for DRM. Being a "force for good", "inclusive", "respectful to its users", "people rather than profits", "that works for everyone"? Utter bullshit. Profits for media conglomerates are clearly more important to them than all of those values.
- lucideer 4y ago
  While it's a shame that support for DRM went through, this is an org that's already suffering criticism for being "irrelevant", through no fault of their own other than a bunch of large rich corporations decided to throw their efforts behind a more expedient force (WHATWG). It's understandable to see why they would fear the same happening with DRM (implementers decided to go with non-W3 specs in order to add DRM support). The above comment is a perfect example: criticising the W3C for being a "fsking mess" due to forces outside of their control (the ownership of web tech by a very small number of very wealthy web client corporations). It's just the way things have gone.
  - mort96 4y ago
    I could forgive it if their stance was simply, "this is unfortunate but there is nothing we can do about it". But that wasn't their stance. Tim Berners-Lee (you know, the director of the W3C) was publicly endorsing DRM. You're right that the W3C has no actual power to dictate what gets standardised anymore; they squandered that, so now only WHATWG's word matters in the end. The only power the W3C has is their ability to influence public opinion, their voice is still rather meaningful in the public debate. They could've used that voice for good, taking the side of the EFF and other pro-freedom organisations to denounce DRM. In the end, they would have had to begrudgingly accept WHATWG's DRM standard if it came to that, but they could've made it clear along the way that it's a terrible idea. This would've put them squarely in the pro-open-web camp, and would've made it clear to the public that the WHATWG is in the anti-open-web camp. Or they could've stayed out of the discussion, accepted their irrelevance, and just adopted the W3C spec. But they chose to actively enter the public debate around DRM in favour of this user-hostile, anti-open-web standard. They chose to use their influence to convince people that DRM is a good thing. They're on the record as being in favour of a web where it is impossible to make a proper open-source web browser which can render any standard web page. In my book, the W3C's stance is clear as day: they're actively hostile to an open web, and they're prepared to spend any influence they might have to fight against it.
whatgroupsajoke 4y ago
Those WHAT group folks are a joke. Look a this person. Asked about an Accept Header on the windows.open function. They just gave them the run around. https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7810 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7810
- dannyobrien 4y ago
  if that's a "runaround", i have terrible news about every other standards body, including the w3c

robin_reala 4y ago

They had a reference browser, but it looks like it’s been dormant for a decade: https://www.w3.org/Amaya/ https://www.w3.org/Amaya/

ZiiS 4y ago
Amaya specifically disagreed we should use "Browsers"; preferring that everyone could contribute by accessing the web via an "Editor". Calling it a browser shows how far it failed to achieve that.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Nowadays, all the large browsers come with development tools that are much more powerful than Amaya (Firefox even has a developers edition that centers the UX around those tools). People still use them for debugging, not development, because the web is inherently a client-server environment that does not allow development done by the client. This is more of a "what were they thinking?" situation than we actually losing anything.
  - slim 4y ago
    the fact it's client-server does not mean there needs to be custom server development. see webdav.
  - culi 4y ago
    I think Amaya's vision is much closer to the original vision of the web though. CSS was made with the idea of each user having their own stylesheet in mind so they could browse the web however they wanted. Obviously CSS has evolved way beyond that nowadays and you need an extension on most browsers to even use something like that. But I think there's a value in a project like Amaya making these tools front and center instead of stashing them away in ways only "developers" are meant to use. I'd hope it'd cultivate a sense making the web work the way you want it to work amongst the general userbase I would actually like to see the project reborn some day
- goto11 4y ago
  Editor-in-the-browser was re-introduced with `contentEditable` in IE6.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    No love for netscape composer?
    - anotheraccount9 4y ago
      Netscape (browser, editor, ...) was one of the best thing that came out of this period.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Netscape was bundling a full WYSIWG + markup editor with their browser in '97, a few years before IE6 came out. It was kinda separate by my recollection, but still basically felt like part of the browser, though it may have been possible to install the browser stand-alone (it's been too long, I don't remember)
- culi 4y ago
  Well they still refer to it as a web editor, but I think it's hard for the rest of us, who've only known browsers, to catch up on that

recuter 4y ago

> I'm sorry but all I can see is W3C, Inc. acting in their own interest, for job security. It is painfully obvious that just about everybody who speaks in that certain way is primarily/exclusively concerned with their own job security. Welcome to Zombocom.

mort96 4y ago

Funny that most of those "ideals" of theirs are directly contradicted by their support for DRM. Being a "force for good", "inclusive", "respectful to its users", "people rather than profits", "that works for everyone"? Utter bullshit. Profits for media conglomerates are clearly more important to them than all of those values.

lucideer 4y ago
While it's a shame that support for DRM went through, this is an org that's already suffering criticism for being "irrelevant", through no fault of their own other than a bunch of large rich corporations decided to throw their efforts behind a more expedient force (WHATWG). It's understandable to see why they would fear the same happening with DRM (implementers decided to go with non-W3 specs in order to add DRM support). The above comment is a perfect example: criticising the W3C for being a "fsking mess" due to forces outside of their control (the ownership of web tech by a very small number of very wealthy web client corporations). It's just the way things have gone.
- mort96 4y ago
  I could forgive it if their stance was simply, "this is unfortunate but there is nothing we can do about it". But that wasn't their stance. Tim Berners-Lee (you know, the director of the W3C) was publicly endorsing DRM. You're right that the W3C has no actual power to dictate what gets standardised anymore; they squandered that, so now only WHATWG's word matters in the end. The only power the W3C has is their ability to influence public opinion, their voice is still rather meaningful in the public debate. They could've used that voice for good, taking the side of the EFF and other pro-freedom organisations to denounce DRM. In the end, they would have had to begrudgingly accept WHATWG's DRM standard if it came to that, but they could've made it clear along the way that it's a terrible idea. This would've put them squarely in the pro-open-web camp, and would've made it clear to the public that the WHATWG is in the anti-open-web camp. Or they could've stayed out of the discussion, accepted their irrelevance, and just adopted the W3C spec. But they chose to actively enter the public debate around DRM in favour of this user-hostile, anti-open-web standard. They chose to use their influence to convince people that DRM is a good thing. They're on the record as being in favour of a web where it is impossible to make a proper open-source web browser which can render any standard web page. In my book, the W3C's stance is clear as day: they're actively hostile to an open web, and they're prepared to spend any influence they might have to fight against it.

whatgroupsajoke 4y ago

Those WHAT group folks are a joke. Look a this person. Asked about an Accept Header on the windows.open function. They just gave them the run around. https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7810 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7810

dannyobrien 4y ago
if that's a "runaround", i have terrible news about every other standards body, including the w3c