W3C and WHATWG splitting on HTML5 spec

[Boz]

Until last year, the WHATWG and W3C (the web?s main standards-making body) had essentially been working together on a single HTML(5) specification, but in January of 2011, Ian Hickson of the WHATWG described a new development model for web standards: the WHATWG would now focus on an evolving, "living standard," while the W3C would stick to producing static "snapshots" using its traditional numbered versioning system. Now, in an email sent to the WHATWG mailing list, Hickson provides an update on the split, explaining that while he had previously been responsible for editing both the W3C and WHATWG specifications, editing duty for the W3C?s version will now belong to someone else.

We?ve spoken with one developer to get his take on this and he concurs with Hickson that the main priority here is what browser leaders will do, although he also thinks that ?separation rarely indicates things are going well.?

http://techcrunch.co...d-not-standard/

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/22/3175248/html5-fork-w3c-whatwg

[Boz]

Here's to HTML5, HTML5+, HTML SuperDuper edition, HTML5 Chrome Edition, HTML5 Firefox edition and of course W3C HTML edition.

Claiming that forking will not influence development and cause a mess in HTML world is such PR it's not even funny.

Of course this isn't anything shocking or unexpected. Most reasonable and informed people who understood that HTML5 has always been a mess and this is just a step that proves how much of a corporate/browser vendor politics play a role in these standards.

[Phouchg]

"This is getting out of hand! Now, there are two of them!"

-- Viceroy Nute Gunray

Though I will make a resume lest some fail to see it for what it has been since its inception:

"[..] probably, nothing has really changed, this potentially doesn't matter, there is no 'standard', it?s really down to vendors"

Standards or no, vendors will decide the features, the implementation, the future, everything.

[Boz]

Standards or no, vendors will decide the features, the implementation, the future, everything.

And since we have 5 browsers we know it will be a mess. We've had this same scenario in 1990s with Netscape, Internet Explore, AOL and floating standards that were never unified. That's why Flash exploded to begin with because none of the features dependent on browsers have worked on a large scale.

So at that point what did happen? We got IE6 as the dominant browser and we are still living through that nightmare. The history is repeating itself, only this time it might be Chrome instead of IE.

[Boz]

"Until now the two standards bodies working on HTML5 (WHATWG and W3C ) have cooperated. An announcement by WHATWG makes it clear that this is no longer true. WHATWG is going to work on a living standard for HTML which will continue to evolve as more technologies are added. WC3 is going the traditional and much more time consuming route of creating a traditional standard which WHATWG refers to as a 'snapshot' of their living standard. Of course now being free of WC3's slower methods WHATWG can accelerate the pace of introducing new technologies to HTML5. Whatever happens, the future has just become more complicated ? now you have to ask yourself 'Which HTML5?'"

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/07/21/2040257/html5-splits-into-two-standards

Freakin' BINGO! :)

[XerXis]

Let's just pray for the return of xhtml 2

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Unfortunately for the doomsayers, this won't actually have any effect. Remember that the WHATWG and the W3C are both made up of the browser makers, and the specs themselves reflect whatever the browsers do, if one group (somehow) manages to change their copy of the spec to something that doesn't match what browsers do, then it'll simply be wrong.

And I don't know how that situation could happen, since (as I said) browser makers are part of both groups and have a very large say over the process at both.

[Boz]

Unfortunately for the doomsayers, this won't actually have any effect.

Yep.. because having two independent HTML standards is a great thing and will work better. :)

The fact they split tells you that there are 2 currents in this game. One is leaning towards introducing new features while the other wants to do the things that are more compatible in the long run aka standard.

Those of us who remember know that W3C and WHATWG never agreed before (aka HTML/xHTML etc). They came together for HTML5 and now they are splitting again.

Hickson is idealistic and disingenuous. Imagine 3 years from now when you have a ton of features in new browsers depending on what a browser vendor thinks will be best for them (aka forking) and are not standardized with W3C and you have a ton of people using old browsers without any of those features. And this WILL happen. Writing HTML/HTML5 will be lots of FUN!

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I'm not sure you got the idea that we're going to have two different incompatible specs regarding HTML, the WHATWG and W3C specs will still agree, since they're describing what browsers do (And the browser makers themselves are part of the W3C and WHATWG, so they have say over what the specs say)

The main difference is that now the author of the WHATWG spec, isn't also maintaining the W3C snapshot copy of the spec, the specs themselves are still going to agree.

[Boz]

The main difference is that now the author of the WHATWG spec, isn't also maintaining the W3C snapshot copy of the spec, the specs themselves are still going to agree.

And we need to believe that on Hickson's word? Forking is ALWAYS going to cause discrepancies and considering that W3C will not evolve the standard as WHATWG will, you will get pretty big differences eventually. Why is there a need to even create 2 different HTML standards? Btw, WHATWG is not supported by everyone.. it is supported by Apple, Mozilla and Opera.

We have already seen this scenario play out before with browser vendors pushing the features while W3C trying to standardize around it and it never worked out. The reason why HTML4 was easy to work with was because the standard wasn't changing (that's why it's called a standard). Right now you will have browser vendors implementing features they feel should be in HTML5 and then W3C will take some things from it and might adopt some while it won't others..

And what are we going to be left with? A bunch of browsers who have a ton of different features that are not part of the standard.

Everyone who is sensible can see that this split is bad news.

[Boz]

The main difference is that now the author of the WHATWG spec, isn't also maintaining the W3C snapshot copy of the spec, the specs themselves are still going to agree.

Here's what's going to happen

If you think that these two organizations are now going their separate ways and that this means that there will be two HTML5 standards, I think you are likely to be correct. The W3C is planning to create a single definitive standard, which WHATWG regards as a "snapshot" of its living standard HTML5. Freed of the need to stay in step with the W3C, it is likely that the WHATWG's living standard will move ahead even faster than before.

Overall this doesn't seem to be a good development. It will no longer be possible to say exactly what HTML5 is - the W3C's snapshot or the living standard of WHATWG. My guess is that Chrome and Firefox will adopt as much of the new stuff as possible and Microsoft will simply pick which bits most suit its corporate interests.

So in the future you will need to choose what HTML5 means to you.

http://www.i-program...-w3c-split.html

[The King of GnG]

Heh, so much for the Internet standard of the future, the holy Saviour of the poor web users enslaved by the evil Adobe Flash plug-in and unifier of all the computing platforms out there....

Seriously, I'm looking forward to the next chapter of the movie. Too bad Steve Jobs won't be alive to enjoy it XD

[Boz]

Heh, so much for the Internet standard of the future, the holy Saviour of the poor web users enslaved by the evil Adobe Flash plug-in and unifier of all the computing platforms out there....

Seriously, I'm looking forward to the next chapter of the movie. Too bad Steve Jobs won't be alive to enjoy it XD

Hah.. if anything this will just reaffirm the need for Flash and the second Flash revolution will take place :D

Hell we might even get Flash Player on smartphones again. ;)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I'm still not sure where you're getting the idea that the specifications are different, you keep referring to the W3C copy as the definitive version, which is wrong, the WHATWG version is the definitive version. If the W3C snapshot disagrees with the WHATWG version, then it's wrong. It's not separate (And if it is, then nobody would use it since the browser makers are following the WHATWG version, etc.)

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

This story is getting blown out of proportion to be honest. No browser can be considered to be HTML5 compatible unless it implements the W3C spec. The point of the WHATWG spec is to get things done. The W3C spec process takes too long, HTML5 won't become a full recommendation until 2014, which means that it'll have taken 6 years from first draft to final recommendation. The WHATWG basically want to change the spec drafting mechanism so that things get done quicker. Something that is desperately needed.

Granted there are downsides, such as the inevitable variations between the browsers' implementations, but as long as developers stick to the W3C snapshots of the spec, they won't have any interoperability issues. Using the WHATWG spec (or if it happens, a browser's independent fork of the specification), will come with all the same hazards as the experimental browser features that aren't guaranteed to be the same across browsers.

[Boz]

I'm still not sure where you're getting the idea that the specifications are different, you keep referring to the W3C copy as the definitive version, which is wrong, the WHATWG version is the definitive version. If the W3C snapshot disagrees with the WHATWG version, then it's wrong. It's not separate (And if it is, then nobody would use it since the browser makers are following the WHATWG version, etc.)

From Ian Hickson himself:

A few years ago (around 2007), we started working with the W3C on what we

were then unofficially calling "HTML5", and officially calling "Web

Applications 1.0". We renamed the specification "HTML5", and the W3C began

publishing a copy of it as well. Not long after, the W3C side of this

effort decided to split their version of the spec into subspecs (e.g.

splitting out the 2D canvas API, server-sent events, postMessage, etc),

and for a while we tried to match that on the WHATWG side. The result was

an increasing confusion of versions of the spec, so we eventually went

back to just having a single spec on the WHATWG side which contains

everything I work on, which we now call the "HTML Living Standard". Over

the years, this document and the various documents on the W3C side have

slowly slightly forked, as documented at the top of the WHATWG spec.

More recently, the goals of the W3C and the WHATWG on the HTML front have

diverged a bit as well. The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the

canonical description of HTML and related technologies, meaning fixing

bugs as we find them [1], adding new features as they become necessary and

viable, and generally tracking implementations. The W3C effort, meanwhile,

is now focused on creating a snapshot developed according to the venerable

W3C process. This led to the chairs of the W3C HTML working group and

myself deciding to split the work into two, with a different person

responsible for editing the W3C HTML5, canvas, and microdata

specifications than is editing the WHATWG specification (me).

So no.. WHATWG is not "definitive" standard. It's not standard at all. It's introducing new features that will go far ahead of W3C HTML standard and will be implemented however browser makers feel they should (in their own way) and then they will try to patch things with W3C if the relationship doesn't collapse completely.

I don't see how any of this can be good. The one bright side was that WHATWG and W3C worked together and created one HTML standard that should have evolved in unified way. Obviously this didn't work out and now even bigger fragmentation between features will happen.

[Boz]

This story is getting blown out of proportion to be honest. No browser can be considered to be HTML5 compatible unless it implements the W3C spec. The point of the WHATWG spec is to get things done. The W3C spec process takes too long, HTML5 won't become a full recommendation until 2014, which means that it'll have taken 6 years from first draft to final recommendation. The WHATWG basically want to change the spec drafting mechanism so that things get done quicker. Something that is desperately needed.

Well that's the problem.. You will have 2 HTML "standards" that browser will implement. Things that WHATWG considers new features and W3C stuff. Eventually you will have a mess of browsers who support different features based on how they feel it benefits the company making a browser.

Needless to say this will be a mess for developers.

If you thought targeting just one HTML5 standard and dealing with compatibility across browsers, wait till you see how this will work out.

[winlonghorn]

http://techcrunch.co...d-not-standard/

http://www.theverge....fork-w3c-whatwg

It figures! HTML5 had great promise, but now they went and split it into two standards! As for WHATWG's version, I am all for constant additions and new technology, but a developer like myself cannot be confident in something if it is constantly evolving! That makes it awful hard to decide whether or not to implement features. *Sigh* Oh well, I guess I will go the route of implementing the new technologies where they make sense and falling back to older technologies for those that don't have browsers to support the features. Such is the life of a developer! lol :)

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

Well that's the problem.. You will have 2 HTML "standards" that browser will implement. Things that WHATWG considers new features and W3C stuff. Eventually you will have a mess of browsers who support different features based on how they feel it benefits the company making a browser.

No, the W3C specs will be a snapshot of the WHATWG spec, therefore the W3C spec will be the same as the WHATWG spec, just older. Think of the WHATWG spec as the "bleeding edge" spec, and the W3C spec as the LTS spec. If something goes into the WHATWG spec, all the browsers will implement it. Anything where there is significant disagreement won't go into the spec until agreement is reached. The WHATWG specs will still be specifications. Any browsers not implementing the WHATWG spec won't be HTML n compliant, since the W3C spec will still require the feature be implemented in that manner.

Needless to say this will be a mess for developers.

If you thought targeting just one HTML5 standard and dealing with compatibility across browsers, wait till you see how this will work out.

I really don't think it will be. HTML5 is HTML5, it's a defined and unchanging W3C specification. Web developers looking to have a highly accessible and compliant spec should use the W3C specification. Anyone looking to try cutting edge features can use the WHATWG rolling spec, but need to be aware that the specification is subject to change, and they'll need to be prepared for that, but how is this any different from how HTML5 was introduced? We had years of "Your browser doesn't support HTML technologies such as <canvas>" already, what's going to change?

If anything, this will be good for the HTML spec progress, because it draws a distinct line between the W3C and WHATWG specs. HTML 5 was a constantly changing specification, and developers looking to use HTML5 tech had to deal with that. Now, HTML n developers will always be assured that the W3C specs will never change, but if they want to use bleeding edge stuff, they can use the WHATWG spec as a rough guide, knowing that this is a fluid spec that may introduce breaking changes between versions.

Any browser-specific "forks" of the specification will be implementation dependent, and aren't standardized to any extent, just as they always have been.

It's worth noting that this split between the consortia has been in place (as the article notes) since January of last year, and the world hasn't ended yet. The notable news here is that Hixie has quit as head of the W3C spec committee. This may pose communication issues between the consortia, however I don't see any significant issues.

[Athernar]

What a load of utter sensationalist nonsense.

Browsers will continue to implement the bleeding edge while being able to now have more solid specs to conform to that don't change constantly.

Of course the doomsayer in this thread would be a shill for a company attempting to lock down the web with their own proprietary cruft. Chrome truely is the new IE6.

Edit: The more I think about it the more awesome it sounds, if relevant DOCTYPEs are created for the new standards, this could be a great help in making sure sites don't break with rolling browser releases.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

Edit: The more I think about it the more awesome it sounds, if relevant DOCTYPEs are created for the new standards, this could be a great help in making sure sites don't break with rolling browser releases.

I think that would cause more issues (Look how many people use the XHTML Transitional doctype, that's just wrong), currently the DOCTYPE is only checked to see if the page should be rendered in quirks mode or standards mode, there's no different behaviour apart from that (Which is also why the WHATWG version of HTML is the definitive version, it details how to properly parse and handle all previous versions of HTML)

That's actually why the recommended doctype is "<!DOCTYPE html>", it's the smallest required doctype to trigger standards mode in browsers, and ensures your page won't fall out of standards mode in the future.

[Athernar]

I think that would cause more issues (Look how many people use the XHTML Transitional doctype, that's just wrong), currently the DOCTYPE is only checked to see if the page should be rendered in quirks mode or standards mode, there's no different behaviour apart from that (Which is also why the WHATWG version of HTML is the definitive version, it details how to properly parse and handle all previous versions of HTML)

That's actually why the recommended doctype is "<!DOCTYPE html>", it's the smallest required doctype to trigger standards mode in browsers, and ensures your page won't fall out of standards mode in the future.

I know how DOCTYPEs function, my point was more that if the two bodies are parting ways with the WHATWG becoming more proactive with their work, it would probably be useful to leverage the existance of the W3C's "after-the-fact" standards so there is a solid (unchanging) base for developers to work from. With the WHATWG's definitive but bleeding edge standard being "use-at-your-own-risk".