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 @MatejLach @varx

Yes, let's! It's not like standards are a moral advantage the web has that (libre) desktops do not!

@alcinnz @Shamar @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
besides, I think the whole idea of running the same app on all platforms is flawed. We should have multiple interoperable implementations for each protocol, file format, etc.

@Shamar @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
one platform?
one operating system?
one desktop environment?
one UI for both mobile, dekstop, and server? for all devices from raspi zero to a gaming rig?

@Wolf480pl @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx

Why not?

What do you think #WebAssembly is for?

It's the one #Ring to rule them all!

I can't tell if it will succeed at this goal, but for sure that is the goal.

I hope they fail for the mountain of shit it's built upon.

Indeed I feel like we are at a very early stage of our field, at a primitive stage, and still big players are trying to lock everybody.

I don't think we are ready to build such universal computing environment.

But why not?

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @rysiek @MatejLach @varx

To attempt to answer your question, it's all a question of purpose and audience (which to be fair is a field full of context and nuance).

Different operating systems serve different audiences with different tastes in the sort of UI they like or need. And apps running on that operating system should be targetted to the cross section between it's own and that OS's audience.

@alcinnz @Wolf480pl @rysiek @MatejLach @varx

Obviously I know this...

The point is: as of today no single computing environment (OS+UI) could serve all purposes, but are we sure it's just because they all sucks?

Maybe we could build a better one.

And AFAIK, WebAssembly just want to be that.

@Shamar @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
judging by how good JS devs are at optimizing their code, nothing web-related will ever be good for low-end devices.
Eg. on Acer Aspire One, the only way to use Slack is through weechat with wee-slack plugin.
Also, in some cases commandline or curses-like text UI is better suited, and I don't see how anything could change that.
Moreover, the user should be able to set UI themes at OS/DE level, and apps should obey that. JS devs would never allow this.


@Shamar @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
Also, different users have different level of expertise, and need different level of features. Eg. I think Conversations is a way better XMPP client for newbies than Gajim, but if you're an XEP-reading nerd debugging the protocol, Gajim is way better suited.

Finally, I think that keyboard with good keybindings beats down mouse or touch input wrt. speed & precision, and touch UIs need different design than kbd or kbd+mouse ones (eg. smaller buttons).

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community O(≧▽≦)O !