4 ms·

Sorry, but with increasing the complexity of CSS aren't we just adding complexity to the web stack ensuring that only Chrome/Firefox/Webkit are the only browser

Sorry, but with increasing the complexity of CSS aren't we just adding complexity to the web stack ensuring that only Chrome/Firefox/Webkit are the only browsers to ever exist again? I can't imagine this ever being supported in an ePub reader _not_ based on one of the above. At this point, why have W3C involved when Apple, Google, and Mozilla could just hash it out amongst themselves?

andrewmcwatters 3y ago
Yeah, but also you can build browsers that only support portions of the specifications considering standards like CSS are broken up into various modules. You don't need to build a browser that supports JavaScript, either. You could implement any other language you wanted. Python! C?! Go? Rust? Writing a toy browser that supports small subsets of web standards is fun, and not too difficult.
- p4bl0 3y ago
  You could build that but it won't be able to browse the actual web. You're just building another platform.
zamadatix 3y ago
> At this point, why have W3C involved when Apple, Google, and Mozilla could just hash it out amongst themselves? The W3C facilitates that for them sow why reinvent that wheel? The W3C is not meant to be independent of other organizations involved in making the web rather made up by them.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  Because the W3C and the IETF should be vendor neutral organizations that serve the broader good and general interoperability. When it's really 2 of the world's largest organisations (we'll see how long Firefox lasts) it's really just rubber stamping their agenda. Maybe it's naive, but it seems like just yet another betrayal of the open web and HTML as a part of that.
  - andybak 3y ago
    Didn't the w3c make a hash of that when it was mostly true? I'm thinking the XHTML debacle and related dead-ends.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    A noble goal but more a wish of what they should offer rather than a view of what they do offer which is why Mozilla/Apple/Google/Microsoft don't feel the need to do things outside of it.

andrewmcwatters 3y ago

Yeah, but also you can build browsers that only support portions of the specifications considering standards like CSS are broken up into various modules. You don't need to build a browser that supports JavaScript, either. You could implement any other language you wanted. Python! C?! Go? Rust? Writing a toy browser that supports small subsets of web standards is fun, and not too difficult.

p4bl0 3y ago
You could build that but it won't be able to browse the actual web. You're just building another platform.

zamadatix 3y ago

> At this point, why have W3C involved when Apple, Google, and Mozilla could just hash it out amongst themselves? The W3C facilitates that for them sow why reinvent that wheel? The W3C is not meant to be independent of other organizations involved in making the web rather made up by them.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
Because the W3C and the IETF should be vendor neutral organizations that serve the broader good and general interoperability. When it's really 2 of the world's largest organisations (we'll see how long Firefox lasts) it's really just rubber stamping their agenda. Maybe it's naive, but it seems like just yet another betrayal of the open web and HTML as a part of that.
- andybak 3y ago
  Didn't the w3c make a hash of that when it was mostly true? I'm thinking the XHTML debacle and related dead-ends.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  A noble goal but more a wish of what they should offer rather than a view of what they do offer which is why Mozilla/Apple/Google/Microsoft don't feel the need to do things outside of it.