

Two HTML Standards Diverge in a Wood - darkxanthos
http://www.webmonkey.com/2012/07/html-groups-part-ways/

======
hoppipolla
Technically there is still only one "HTML5" standard; the W3C one.

WHATWG are editing the "HTML Living Standard". Unlike the W3C model, there
aren't version numbers or set phases that the spec must go through. Instead
there is a process of continuous development; fixing bugs as they are found
and continually iterating new features in response to the evolving needs of
the web. This process is modeled around the way that browsers are actually
developed, and should help innovation on the web keep pace with proprietary
platforms.

The goal of the W3C version is somewhat different; it is essentially a branch
aimed at stabilisation (likely at the expense of accuracy) in order that there
is a well defined set of technologies covered by the W3C Patent Policy. It is
also governed by a somewhat different (consensus based) decision making policy
compared to the WHATWG version (the editor specs what people are willing to
implement). History suggests that any differences that arise are most likely
to be in things that don't affect UA interoperability but concern the
definition of a valid document.

So the net effect of this change is that we will once again have a version of
the HTML spec being developed using the system (and at the speed) that gave us
HTML5 in the first place.

------
rmccue
> Anything is possible, but we remain hopeful that that won’t happen, at least
> in part because the W3C standard is more of a branch than a fork.

In terms of VCSes, it's essentially a release branch, with "HTML 5" being the
eventual endpoint (tag) of it.

~~~
ekidd
Well, that's what everybody is hoping for, at least.

The worst-case scenario is that the W3C HTML 5 working group goes wildly
astray and writes a horrible standard that nobody implements. Remember HTML
3.0? XHTML 2.0? SMILE 2.0? WS-*?

Standards committees have a tendency to produce 300-page specs where every
feature is both optional and vague. The recent OAuth2 rant describes the
process perfectly:

[http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-
hell...](http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell/)

So the real fear here is that without Ian Hickson, the W3C may loose sight of
the ball. Again. But in that case, I imagine the browser vendors will happily
ignore them. Again.

------
beagle3
We've sort of been through that some 10 years ago, with the XHTML vs. HTML4,
which people originally tried to conform to both, then consolidate, then threw
XHTML out the window, because practicality beats purity.

History does not exactly repeat, but it rhymes really well.

------
wmf
This isn't a problem. W3C is working on _the_ HTML5 standard while WHATWG is
working on the "HTML Living Standard" or what you might call HTML-HEAD or
HTML6-beta. <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/>

------
pepve
This sounds a lot scarier than in actually is. It is highly unlikely that one
vendor will stick with the W3C and another with the WHATWG. (Yeah, I care more
about what vendors will do than what standards bodies do.) I think cross-
browser compatibility will keep increasing, as it is doing right now. (The
three way split in market share helps.)

------
catilac
>What some developers fear is that down the road the two >specs will diverge
in significant ways and HTML will become >a messy set of forked standards and
varying browser support >that lands us back in the bad old days of IE 6

This is what I'm worried about myself, but I'd like to think that anyone
involved with either parties would work together to ensure that it didn't.

------
kayoone
Hard to believe that they really decided that this is the best way to go
forward given all the HTML standard troubles we already have and had in the
past.

------
qatalo
This must be killed RIGHT NOW.

~~~
hughw
Why?

------
SeanDav
This sort of process does more damage to technological innovation than almost
anything else I can think of (besides the music and film industry). Look at
the state of Unix for example. A free, powerful operating system should be a
no brainer for anyone. Until you ask yourself a few basic questions, like
which flavour, and religious wars break out.

If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would
likely have taken over the world by now.

This is why the world needs people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Linus et al.

I shudder when I think of the type of damage this sort of thing can do to HTML
and web technology.

~~~
icebraining
_If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would
likely have taken over the world by now._

Uhm, Unix and Linux do own the world. Desktop PCs are an anomaly in the
computing world: phones, servers, TVs, tablets, networking gear,
supercomputers, multimedia players, many GPS devices, are all predominantly
running Unix or Unix-like.

 _I shudder when I think of the type of damage this sort of thing can do to
HTML and web technology._

Breaks to the standard web technologies have brought us, among others:

\- JPEG support (Netscape)

\- File uploads (Netscape)

\- Javascript (Netscape)

\- AJAX/XMLHttpRequest (IE)

\- Canvas (Apple's Webkit)

\- nofollow links (Google)

They can be problematic if they're proprietary (i.e. ActiveX), but they're not
necessarily bad.

~~~
SeanDav
\- Which Unix or Linux would that be?

\- Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have
imagined the whole PC revolution thing then...

\- Also interesting that you think that the current split in HTML5 standards
is going to lead to good things. Care to explain how?

~~~
icebraining
_Which Unix or Linux would that be?_

It's not which. It's Unix and Linux as a whole.

 _Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have
imagined the whole PC revolution thing then..._

Apparently you don't know what anomaly means.

 _Also interesting that you think that the current split in HTML5 standards is
going to lead to good things. Care to explain how?_

That's not what I said, you're putting words in my mouth. I said it's not
_necessarily bad_.

But personally, I trust Mozilla and Opera; if they felt the creation of the
WHATWG was important for the development of web technologies, then it's a good
thing as far as I'm concerned.

~~~
SeanDav
Ok at the risk of being further down voted, I am going to have 1 more crack at
this.

 _It's not which. It's Unix and Linux as a whole._

This is exactly my point, I don't believe there is a Unix or Linux as a whole.
Sure, there are Unix-like and Linux-like OS's out there and if you know 1 then
you can easily adapt to using another. That is the point, you have to adapt.
That is why unified standards are a good thing, you ideally only have to
develop once.

 _Uhm, Unix and Linux do own the world. Desktop PCs are an anomaly in the
computing world_

I know exactly what anomaly means. We are just going to have to agree to
disagree on this one. I would argue that before the Desktop PC revolution,
computing was niche and elitist. Desktop PC's opened the world of computing to
everyone and hugely accelerated the take-up and rate of innovation in all
things computing. Additionally this Desktop PC revolution was driven by IBM,
Intel and Microsoft, not Unix/Linux.

 _But personally, I trust Mozilla and Opera; if they felt the creation of the
WHATWG was important for the development of web technologies, then it's a good
thing as far as I'm concerned._

I am not going to argue this one as I am not going to be seen as bad mouthing
Mozilla or Opera, especially as I am a huge fan of Firefox and have great
respect for both companies. Perhaps I am just old and scared of change but I
fail to see how forking or branching HTML5 standards can possibly be a good
thing. Browsing and HTLML5 in particular is an important foundation in future
development and I just hate to see standards possibly diverging in this.

~~~
icebraining
_This is exactly my point, I don't believe there is a Unix or Linux as a
whole. Sure, there are Unix-like and Linux-like OS's out there and if you know
1 then you can easily adapt to using another. That is the point, you have to
adapt. That is why unified standards are a good thing, you ideally only have
to develop once._

I fear the stagnation caused by lack of competition much more than the
adaption required to move from Linux to BSD or MacOSX, but to each his own.
We've seen what happens when there's only one browser in town; an OS has the
potential of being much worse.

 _I know exactly what anomaly means. We are just going to have to agree to
disagree on this one. I would argue that before the Desktop PC revolution,
computing was niche and elitist. Desktop PC's opened the world of computing to
everyone and hugely accelerated the take-up and rate of innovation in all
things computing. Additionally this Desktop PC revolution was driven by IBM,
Intel and Microsoft, not Unix/Linux._

There's nothing to disagree with, it's a fact. Desktop PC were "a deviation
from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form" in that they didn't use a
UNIX/-like OS.

I agree that they opened the world of computing to everyone and etc, but
that's irrelevant to my point.

 _I am not going to argue this one as I am not going to be seen as bad
mouthing Mozilla or Opera, especially as I am a huge fan of Firefox and have
great respect for both companies. Perhaps I am just old and scared of change
but I fail to see how forking or branching HTML5 standards can possibly be a
good thing. Browsing and HTLML5 in particular is an important foundation in
future development and I just hate to see standards possibly diverging in
this._

We probably wouldn't _have_ an HTML5 standard if it wasn't for the WHATWG
fork; Mozilla and Opera proposed the W3C - who were caught on XHTML 2.0 - to
continue the work in HTML and they were shut down, so they formed a new group
and did it themselves.

