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.
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:
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.
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.
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.)
>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.
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.
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.
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.
A few years ago, when Eric Raymond was complaining about proprietary GPS related "standards", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=888 , I drew what I think is a useful distinction in a comment:
An “unreleased standard” is not a standard, it’s a specification. Conversely, a standard is a shared specification.
And the same could be said for proprietary "standards". But in the case of HTML5, they are both open standards, just with different "forms of presentation", I guess would be the most useful term. One is a moving, transient standard, the other (W3C) is a series of snapshots.
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.
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.
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.
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.