On the other, it seems like just complete capitulation by the W3C; WHATWG makes all the real decisions still, W3C now performs important administrative services for free, turning the "living standard" into an actual usable standard, without actually having any meaningful power over the results. WHATWG gets to do the part that matters without having to do the hard part, W3C does the hard part for them without any control over what matters.
On the other other hand, sometimes when the battle is already lost, formal capitulation is all that's left.
The browser vendors took control of the web standards process from any body that might represent/balance multiple constituencies/interests, and that's just how it is now.
W3C did try to balance multiple constituencies for HTML, but it couldn't find consensus among them, and broad consensus is the basis for its authority. WHATWG didn't so much take control of the standards process as recognize that what actually works on the web defines the "stadard"
It's not a capitulation, it's a way to exert influence in a world that respects rough consensus and running code more than formal processes and authority. Under the agreement, W3C has the power to ratify (or not) changes to HTML/DOM that align with the needs of its broad community for accessibility, internationalization, privacy, security, etc. The agreement provides a way for experts in those "horizontal" areas to participate more effectively in WHATWG to get improvements made upstream, rather than downstream in what amounted to a fork.
And yes, W3C provides the service of providing vetted snapshots of the Living Standards into more formal standards that governments and other standards bodies can reference and ratify. That's adding real value for some constituencies.
If they choose "not to ratify" something... will it have any effect on browser behavior at all? I don't think so. It'd just be a standard none of the relevant software cares about. Pretty useless to anyone. (Much like current W3C html standards...)
Seems to me W3C will straight up be acting as administrative staff for WHATWG, providing free labor to do the "hard parts" of providing a useful standard, without much decision-making ability.
Without much decision-making ability is indeed the status quo. Now they're providing some free labor too. But it's certainly less pointless than what they were doing before, so.
> If they choose "not to ratify" something... will it have any effect on browser behavior at all?
W3C has no authority to change browser behavior, no. But they CAN influence browser behavior by providing expert assistance to promote W3C's traditional values (accessibility, internationalization, privacy, etc.) in WHATWG.
We'll have to see if W3C's ratification or not has an impact on the larger web ecosystem, but it would probably get key customers' (and regulators) attention if W3C refused to ratify changes to HTML, DOM, etc. on accesibility or privacy grounds. Browser developers may respect W3C's supposed authority to set standards, but they definitely do respect the opinions of customers and authority of regulators.
On the other, it seems like just complete capitulation by the W3C; WHATWG makes all the real decisions still, W3C now performs important administrative services for free, turning the "living standard" into an actual usable standard, without actually having any meaningful power over the results. WHATWG gets to do the part that matters without having to do the hard part, W3C does the hard part for them without any control over what matters.
On the other other hand, sometimes when the battle is already lost, formal capitulation is all that's left.
The browser vendors took control of the web standards process from any body that might represent/balance multiple constituencies/interests, and that's just how it is now.