News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Forking HTML into a static language doesn't make sense. Parent comment

Re:Forking HTML into a static language doesn't make sense by dragonwriter on Monday June 22, 2020 @12:09PM (#23601807)
What you seem to fail to recognize is that the reason nothing has been discussed (whether of the style you want or otherwise) at W3C regarding advancing HTML since XHTML2 is that the colossal failure of the “we’ll right a from-first-principles spec with no concern for pragmatics” approach with XHTML2 resulted in W3C being completely sidelined for HTML development. No one is listening to them, the browser vendors all work through WHATWG and that's where everything that matters happens.

W3C isn't interested in advancing HTML as anything and, even if they were, they'd be screaming into the night because none of the people who build browsers are interested in what they have to say. They’ve got their own club, and that's where HTML happens (and WHATWG and the browser vendors don't seem to be interested in pushing functionality into HTML in any big way, they are happy with the basic shape of the existing HTML/CS/JS trinity and don't see a big need to push for standalone HTML as a platform.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Forking HTML into a static language doesn't make sense by sergeykish on Monday June 22, 2020 @04:43PM (#23606347)
XHTML was not that bad. It was quite conservative - make serialization/deserialization idempotent, remove document.write, quirks mode, DOM Level 0 accessors.

The stupid part was advertising of writing XML by hand - both XHTML and XSLT. That is machine format - "application" in "application/xml". Not more sense than writing JS AST. And semantic web has no advantage for author.

XHTML 2.0 - XML Events is like IE <script for>, <img>alt</img> is good, <h> is good, removal of <i>, <b> - no one would see, XForms - partly adopted, and RDF - don't know.

Though it kind of understandable - XML was in rage. Everyone pushed it, Microsoft above all, IE5 accepted "text/xml" [1]. And Microsoft pushed XSLT without XSL-FO.

[1] https://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/03/ie5/first-x.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Forking HTML into a static language doesn't make sense by recursivedoubts on Monday June 22, 2020 @03:27PM (#23604994)
thank you for clarifying

i knew there was some drama betweeen the two organziations but didn't know the history

[ Parent | on HN ]