News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Passive event listeners. Parent comment

Re:Passive event listeners by fiatjaf on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @12:32PM (#15028837)
That's a good question. That <!DOCTYPE> things is that such mechanism, isn't it? (Or it was supposed to be.)

Perhaps the problem is that shipping, for example, two different Javascript engines would be too bad for browsers?

I want to know.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Passive event listeners by twiss on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @01:02PM (#15029110)
The WHATWG's philosophy for the HTML standard is never to sway too far from what browsers currently do, mainly to make sure that the browsers can keep up: https://whatwg.org/faq?#living-standard

The browsers seem to like that, so it's probably unlikely that we'll get a wildly different HTML6 anytime soon, if ever.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Passive event listeners by Fifer82 on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @02:11PM (#15029738)
Yeah exactly. I can't even really find what I am trying to say, but Doctypes had some other piece of data with it. Was it a link or string to a spec? Like XHTML vs HTML4. Randomly I am sure that if you omit it, then it is "html5".which is random, shouldn't they have forced a spec HTML5?

That choice basically says to me that the idea of partitioning, or whatever those doctypes were for, is now abandoned.

[ Parent | on HN ]