3 ms·
Once web development moved to the WHATWG, it's not obvious what continued relevance W3C had. Nobody was particularly waiting on their blessing or rubber stamp.
by JoshTriplett 2y ago
Once web development moved to the WHATWG, it's not obvious what continued relevance W3C had. Nobody was particularly waiting on their blessing or rubber stamp.
The W3C was not, for instance, a useful bastion against things like DRM, because they approved the EME DRM mechanism. And they weren't doing new web innovation that people wanted. So what purpose did they serve?
- soraminazuki 2y agoThat the W3C wasn't a useful bastion against DRM is an understatement. It was the main driving force. WHATWG, on the other hand, appears to have opposed it. https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security So what purpose did the W3C serve? Transforming user agents into entertainment industry agents, I guess.
- mindcrash 2y agoA few tech companies have outrageous _corporate_ influence in the W3C who shouldn't. To name a few: Google, Microsoft, Netflix. I predicted serious issues with this ages ago, to the point that I suggested the best thing for humankind would be a fork of the HTML spec on behest of WHATWG. I also remember some long time independent contributors like Anne van Kesteren agreeing to this at the time. Also: https://theoutline.com/post/2304/netflix-microsoft-and-google-just-quietly-changed-how-the-web-works https://theoutline.com/post/2304/netflix-microsoft-and-googl... (2017!)