Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple Formally Object to W3C Fork of DOM Spec

(submitted by tptacek)

@rysiek @hntooter A little of context, please!

What exactly are they objecting to?

To a new DOM specification?

@Shamar @hntooter my understanding is that W3C is *forking* the WHATWG DOM spec, changing it just enough for it to be annoying, and publishing as a competing standard.


@Shamar @hntooter that's a very valid question. If you find an answer, let me know.

@Shamar @rysiek Oof, I feel the W3C position on this, as elucidated by the SO poster.

I'm seeing an analogy between the WHATWG's "living standard" and the ridiculousness of the evergreen browser where webdevs only feel the need to support browsers released in the past couple months.

Anyone else seeing that?

@varx @rysiek
Ok, here seem to be explained the political reasoning:

In practice it seems that the #W3C have simply realized that nobody delegated to WHATWG their work, and proposed an update Recommendation.

The #WHATWG got offended since they prefer to control a "Live Standard" that only large organization can implement.

Large companies are like that, you must always ask their permission.
Now I'd like to know what technical difference exists between the two DOM APIs.

@Shamar @varx @rysiek Since W3C pushed for standardisation of EME despite large community backslash, I don't think W3C is any different in this regard wen it comes to the influence of large companies. It seems like a much more likely explanation is simply that the W3C feels they outta have as much web standards under their umbrella as possible and they're not happy that the implemented DOM has so far not been the one they control.

@MatejLach @varx @rysiek

#EME standardisation is a good point.

I remember the #EFF reaction:

But... #WTF.

So we have the most powerful companies of the planet on one side and an organization prone to lobbying on the other.

Both located in the #Trump #USA.

Literally fighthing for the #destiny (and the #control) of the #web.

Take this #ScienceFiction!

@Shamar @varx @rysiek Yeah, surreal. The funny thing is, from a purely *technical* perspective, the W3C is trying to do the sane thing here, i.e. as developers etc. we should have a set DOM standard to target, rather than a document that is constantly changing under our feet as Google or MS wish, however W3C is an unreliable actor, so if they lack the big corps on this, they can't even turn to support from the community with a straight face, given their undemocratic history.

@rysiek @MatejLach @varx

Frankly I think this story should make everybody realize we need to replace the web with a better technology.

We cannot trust neither of them.

@Shamar @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
IMO we should abolish the concept of "web as a platform for your apps" and turn it back into a platform for publishing documents.


@Wolf480pl @Shamar @rysiek @varx Interesting, web apps have somewhat decoupled one from a particular OS, (but not 'ecosystem' unfortunately), so I feel they're a net positive, if not a large one. However people would still want to use/do web apps, so it would just be a question of who controls two separate standards now.
The distinction between a document and and an app can also be somewhat murky, (i.e. Wikipedia is technically an app).
I think it's a governance problem, not a technical one.

@MatejLach @Shamar @rysiek @varx
IMO the subset of wikipedia URLs that do not have the editor open is just a bunch of documents.

Anyway, I think it'd be cool to have some subset of the web specs suited for documents, that is relatively stable, and can be implemented by lightweight browsers made by smaller vendors.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Matej Lach's mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!