New standoff between WHATWG and W3C: in whose hands is the future of HTML5?
Recently , a very significant event for the web happened , in my opinion. Ian Hickson (or simply Hixie) left the W3C and decided to do what was closer to him - to maintain a “living standard”, without waiting for the approval of his actions by colleagues from the W3C. All of course nothing, if not a lot of weighty BUT, because of which this situation may turn out for us is not the best way.
It is clear to the naked eye that internal disassemblies, misunderstandings and inconsistencies in ideas and actions occur between the two groups (WHATWG and W3C). One example is, for example, version statuses of specifications (I mean Draft - Last Call - Candidate - Proposed - Recommendation), which are important only for the W3C, but from which the WHATWG refused altogether. Or a situation where the W3C tried to split the HTML5 specification into several parts, and the WHATWG returned to the single spec model.
All these and many other events led to a final discord between these groups and now each of them is going to sculpt his own HTML5 specification . Already become scared?
')
Imagine the situation. There is a state in which there is not one ruler (as it should be), but let's say several and each of them adheres to his point of view and does not want to yield to another. Everyone pulls the blanket over himself and wants to be the last resort. What will happen to such a state, presented?
It turns out that there is no single commander in chief, a commander who could ultimately make one and the most important thing - the right decisions. Instead, there is Hixie, who makes quick-firing decisions (such as “Ugu” or “Nea”), starting from his ideas and goals, and the W3C, which is going to make a consensus to make a decision.
In fact, formally the leader seems to be there, but in the area of ​​recent events this leader has almost lost his authority in the face of browser developers and all those who are brewed in this porridge. I'm talking about the W3C group.
In general, because of all the above, a terrible mess can pour out, where everyone will do what he wants, regardless of others. Imagine if, for example, Firefox adheres to the W3C, and the Chrome rules of WHATWG, in the end we will get another IE6 :( almost happened in the rest) and inflicted such a monopoly, which I never dreamed of in any IE6, and the recent situation with proprietarism, which in considerable quantities fell into specs.
I believe that the web is still needed to control browser browser tyranny and the big question is, can WHATWG become such? Here I am afraid that there is not, given that Hixie == Google.
Let's think together about how we will live with it now, what will happen to the specifications and browsers, and whether this situation can somehow be slightly corrected (and if so, how).
It is clear to the naked eye that internal disassemblies, misunderstandings and inconsistencies in ideas and actions occur between the two groups (WHATWG and W3C). One example is, for example, version statuses of specifications (I mean Draft - Last Call - Candidate - Proposed - Recommendation), which are important only for the W3C, but from which the WHATWG refused altogether. Or a situation where the W3C tried to split the HTML5 specification into several parts, and the WHATWG returned to the single spec model.
All these and many other events led to a final discord between these groups and now each of them is going to sculpt his own HTML5 specification . Already become scared?
')
How can this threaten us?
Imagine the situation. There is a state in which there is not one ruler (as it should be), but let's say several and each of them adheres to his point of view and does not want to yield to another. Everyone pulls the blanket over himself and wants to be the last resort. What will happen to such a state, presented?
It turns out that there is no single commander in chief, a commander who could ultimately make one and the most important thing - the right decisions. Instead, there is Hixie, who makes quick-firing decisions (such as “Ugu” or “Nea”), starting from his ideas and goals, and the W3C, which is going to make a consensus to make a decision.
In fact, formally the leader seems to be there, but in the area of ​​recent events this leader has almost lost his authority in the face of browser developers and all those who are brewed in this porridge. I'm talking about the W3C group.
In general, because of all the above, a terrible mess can pour out, where everyone will do what he wants, regardless of others. Imagine if, for example, Firefox adheres to the W3C, and the Chrome rules of WHATWG, in the end we will get another IE6 :( almost happened in the rest) and inflicted such a monopoly, which I never dreamed of in any IE6, and the recent situation with proprietarism, which in considerable quantities fell into specs.
I believe that the web is still needed to control browser browser tyranny and the big question is, can WHATWG become such? Here I am afraid that there is not, given that Hixie == Google.
How to be now?
Let's think together about how we will live with it now, what will happen to the specifications and browsers, and whether this situation can somehow be slightly corrected (and if so, how).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/148406/
All Articles