3 ms·
I dunno, perhaps if the W3C and WHATWG produced radically different specifications, one of them would be explicitly rejected by everyone and thus die a clean de
by kijin 12y ago
I dunno, perhaps if the W3C and WHATWG produced radically different specifications, one of them would be explicitly rejected by everyone and thus die a clean death. That might be better than having two very similar, equally authoritative, but subtly different specifications, one of which is sort of but not quite a snapshot of the other.
- greyfade 12y agoEqually authoritative? I had no idea WHATWG was drafting specifications, let alone considered authoritative.
- domenicd 12y agoMany of the foundational specifications of the web are authored and maintained by the WHATWG these days: https://spec.whatwg.org/ https://spec.whatwg.org/ - DOM, HTML: obvious - URL, Encoding, Fetch: foundational building blocks - XHR, Fullscreen, Notifications: important features There are also other up-and-coming specs like Books, Figures, Streams, or Loader (the latter two not listed).
- edwintorok 12y agoThe spec site doesn't load for me on Firefox with RC4 disabled: Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s). (Error code: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap)
- coldtea 12y agoWell, perhaps you haven't kept up then. It's a while since W3C was considered either authoritative or relevant for the modern web. HTML5 is most all WHATWG.