4 ms·

Please everyone, stop acting so holy about "the spec". The HTML spec isn't sacred. It's very reasonable to discuss it, even after a feature has been approved.

Please everyone, stop acting so holy about "the spec". The HTML spec isn't sacred. It's very reasonable to discuss it, even after a feature has been approved. How else will we improve the existing features? If we don't change existing things, the browser will stay the stinking ball of backwards compatible code it is today.

anon1385 13y ago
>Please everyone, stop acting so holy about "the spec". The HTML spec isn't sacred. This argument is never accepted when it comes from Microsoft. When they refuse to implement a standard it's an 'attack on the web' and MS trying to 'kill' the web for their own commercial interests. When Google rejects a standard and their public reasoning is that they can't be bothered to finish the implementation (it was already in Webkit after all) then we should just accept it. But why? Because Google is 'good' and Microsoft is 'bad'? The reality is that MathML isn't in Googles commercial interest so it won't get done. That is the real story behind all the happy sing-alongs about the open web: it is ruled by a couple of teams in large powerful corporations who have the power to kill any part of the standard that conflicts with their commercial interests, or even just fails to promote their commercial interests.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexanderDhoore 13y ago
  Stop making everything so black and white. No corporation is 'good', nor 'evil'. Yes, the spec is run by corporations. No, that's not evil. Yes, they'll probably promote their own interests. No, that's not the end of the world.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    I wasn't saying I think they are good or evil. I was saying that kind of black and white thinking seems to be what leads the web community to attack MS for ignoring standards but defend Google for doing the same. >Yes, the spec is run by corporations. No, that's not evil. Yes, they'll probably promote their own interests. No, that's not the end of the world. It's fine as long as we have native open platforms that we can use instead. However Google and Mozilla want us all to be running web based OSs. In that world yes it would be a huge deal for one player to block a standard.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  Not a web guy, but my understanding of most attacks against IE is where it implemented the spec incorrectly, particularly with CSS. However, if they're being attacked because they don't implement something that's a different case.
  - wolfgke 13y ago
    Microsoft was attacked with these arguments when they decided not to implement WebGL in Internet Explorer 10.
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      Yeah, I realized that a couple minutes ago. Not a full defense of that attack, but that decision by MS may have reminded people of the Direct3d vs OpenGL fight that happened in the 90s.
      - wolfgke 13y ago
        And what about not implementing Speedy in IE 10? Not implementing Touch Events in IE 11 (Internet Explorer uses Pointer Events instead)? Here I remembered some sh*tstorms, too.

anon1385 13y ago

>Please everyone, stop acting so holy about "the spec". The HTML spec isn't sacred. This argument is never accepted when it comes from Microsoft. When they refuse to implement a standard it's an 'attack on the web' and MS trying to 'kill' the web for their own commercial interests. When Google rejects a standard and their public reasoning is that they can't be bothered to finish the implementation (it was already in Webkit after all) then we should just accept it. But why? Because Google is 'good' and Microsoft is 'bad'? The reality is that MathML isn't in Googles commercial interest so it won't get done. That is the real story behind all the happy sing-alongs about the open web: it is ruled by a couple of teams in large powerful corporations who have the power to kill any part of the standard that conflicts with their commercial interests, or even just fails to promote their commercial interests.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
AlexanderDhoore 13y ago
Stop making everything so black and white. No corporation is 'good', nor 'evil'. Yes, the spec is run by corporations. No, that's not evil. Yes, they'll probably promote their own interests. No, that's not the end of the world.
- anon1385 13y ago
  I wasn't saying I think they are good or evil. I was saying that kind of black and white thinking seems to be what leads the web community to attack MS for ignoring standards but defend Google for doing the same. >Yes, the spec is run by corporations. No, that's not evil. Yes, they'll probably promote their own interests. No, that's not the end of the world. It's fine as long as we have native open platforms that we can use instead. However Google and Mozilla want us all to be running web based OSs. In that world yes it would be a huge deal for one player to block a standard.
Jtsummers 13y ago
Not a web guy, but my understanding of most attacks against IE is where it implemented the spec incorrectly, particularly with CSS. However, if they're being attacked because they don't implement something that's a different case.
- wolfgke 13y ago
  Microsoft was attacked with these arguments when they decided not to implement WebGL in Internet Explorer 10.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    Yeah, I realized that a couple minutes ago. Not a full defense of that attack, but that decision by MS may have reminded people of the Direct3d vs OpenGL fight that happened in the 90s.
    - wolfgke 13y ago
      And what about not implementing Speedy in IE 10? Not implementing Touch Events in IE 11 (Internet Explorer uses Pointer Events instead)? Here I remembered some sh*tstorms, too.