8/24/2023 0 Comments Business as usual memeMost recently, I was miffed with the WHATWG rather than the W3C but once again, it was entirely to do with specification organisation rather than specification contents. ![]() Not that I’m not immune to HTML5-related temper loss. Tension here, but we just have to muddle on through … I think we’re doing Those implementations, because you need the feedback. To be finished before there are implementations and author experience with However, you also don’t want the specification Youĭon’t want implementations to happen before the specification is finished,īecause people start depending on the details of implementations and thatĬonstrains the specification. Implementations and specifications have to do a delicate dance together. The truth, as always, is much more nuanced than that, as beautifully summed up by Rob O’Callahan: It’s easy to polarise this issue into a black and white dichotomy: implementation first vs. That’s sensible advice, although he gets some push-back in the comments from people concerned about a market-led approach to web standards, wherein we only care about what browsers are implementing, not what’s enshrined into a standard. Tantek was responding to a post by Malarkey who advises us to keep calm and carry on. The previous several revisions of HTML (including XHTML) were largely developed in W3C Members-Only mailing lists (and face-to-face meetings) which contained a lot of similar “corporate politics, egotism, squabbles and petty disagreements” - however such tussles were invisible to search engines, the general public, and of course all the professional web developers and designers (like yourself) - you never saw how the sausage was made as it were. ![]() Still, that’s a far cry from declaring the whole thing a waste of time.Īs Tantek points out, if the HTML5 shenanigans seem particularly crazy, that’s only because they are that much more public than most other processes: The chairs of the working group face an uphill struggle every single day. That’s par for the course when it comes to the HTML Working Group at the W3C the technical discussions are outweighed by the political and procedural wranglings. So all of the shouting and arguing was more about politics and procedure than about features or semantics. Before too long, most of the changes were rolled back. Hixie then removed some other parts of HTML5 a move which was seen as a somewhat petulant reaction to the microdata splittage. ![]() The W3C HTML Working Group recently decided to split microdata into a separate specification (which I think is fair enough given RDFa’s similar status). This particular round of chicken-littling was caused by the shuffling of some spec components. The web-and Twitter in particular-has been awash with wailing and gnashing of teeth as various people weigh in with their opinions on either the W3C or the WHATWG-depending on which camp they’re in-being irreversibly broken …exactly the kind of ludicrous over-reaction at which the internet excels.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |