4 ms·
Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2
by gsnedders 13y ago
Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2), initially in the form of Web Forms 2.0, and so the WHATWG was born.
The big problem is copyright on all the specs is owned by the W3C. Oh, you want to spec CSS? Well, then you have to do it from scratch. Yes, HTML is now at a point where it is better specified than ever, and more interoperable than ever, but it's been a long, hard journey there. Consider the spec has been worked on for over a decade now. Respecifying, from scratch, large parts of the web platform is an incredibly large undertaking, especially ensuring the spec defines something compatible with almost all web content when browsers frequently disagree in edge-cases with up-until-now unspecified behaviour.
- etherealG 13y agoare you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf
- petercooper 13y agoThe background on this issue: http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ and rationale: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences
- etherealG 13y agothanks very much. am i right in that the main reason for this is that forking is undesired? how is that helpful to an open system?
- gsnedders 13y agoThe view is that forking of specs leads to a multitude of specs, thereby making interoperability harder, and ultimately making the system less open.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 13y agoYou don't need to re-specify anything from scratch. Copyright does not prevent you from referencing the existing documents.