WebStandardisation
how browser vendors
collaborate, or not
Warning Personal experiences and
opinions
shape this rant
What is HTML5?
| 1991 | 1993 | 1995 | 1997 | 1999 | 2005 | 2008 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HTML Tags | HTML I-D | HTML 2.0 | HTML 3.2/4.0 | HTML 4.01 | Web Forms 2.0 | HTML 5 |
WHATWG
semantic-level markup language and associated semantic-level scripting APIs
W3C
vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML
HTML5 vs HTML Living Standard
Why?
Goals:
interoperability
conformance
new features
implementation
Principles:
Support existing content
Degrade gracefully
Pave the cowpaths
Evolution not revolution
Solve real problems
Priority of constituencies
Universal access
users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity
Who?
...and plenty more
individuals and organisations
Who at W3C?
W3C members
W3C invited experts
Where?
W3C Working Groups
W3C Community Groups
W3C Incubator Groups
W3C Interest Groups
WHATWG mailing list
Private Discussions
Other Standards Bodies
How?
The process is inherently messy.
WHATWG process
email discussion
use case and requirements
experimental implementation
editor assesses information
editor makes decision
not consensus-based, no voting
W3C HTML WG process
bug tracker discussion
editor response
escalate to issue
WG decision, may overrule editor
formal objection possible
Best Practices
Understand your needs
Document your needs
Demonstrate in implementation
Throw it all away
Re-implement
Threats
early shipping
Devs create content
Creates cow-path
Split of Web
Limits use cases
Sub-optimal specification
Take-Away
Constant state of flux
Varying maturity
Tight experiments
Make code changes
Learn Patience