W3C - Revision history

Ms2ger at 08:47, 25 June 2019

2019-06-25T08:47:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 25 June 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	** https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=1232		** https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=1232
	** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html		** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html
			** https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/pull/8849#issuecomment-505263102
	** ?? many versions of canvas		** ?? many versions of canvas
	* Has a Process that can [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ lead to working groups doing bad testing] (just be able to meet W3C process requirements for transitioning from Candidate Recommendation to final W3C Recommendation, and the test suite cannot be living when the rules are strictly applied)		* Has a Process that can [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ lead to working groups doing bad testing] (just be able to meet W3C process requirements for transitioning from Candidate Recommendation to final W3C Recommendation, and the test suite cannot be living when the rules are strictly applied)

Zcorpan: /* The WHATWG is Formed */ Omit some no longer relevant text

2018-09-25T14:49:46Z

The WHATWG is Formed: Omit some no longer relevant text

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 25 September 2018
Line 75:		Line 75:
	The initial (invite-only) membership of the WHATWG consisted of individuals affiliated with Apple, Mozilla and Opera Software. (Ian Hickson, the editor of the WHATWG specifications, later moved to Google.) However, in the view of the Web held by the WHATWG, there is also a fourth mass-market browser: Microsoft’s Internet Explorer – the leader in market share. Microsoft has not been participating in the WHATWG despite having been invited. The publicly stated reason was that the WHATWG lacked a patent policy. Dean Edwards, a Internet Explorer expert not affiliated with Microsoft, joined the WHATWG later.		The initial (invite-only) membership of the WHATWG consisted of individuals affiliated with Apple, Mozilla and Opera Software. (Ian Hickson, the editor of the WHATWG specifications, later moved to Google.) However, in the view of the Web held by the WHATWG, there is also a fourth mass-market browser: Microsoft’s Internet Explorer – the leader in market share. Microsoft has not been participating in the WHATWG despite having been invited. The publicly stated reason was that the WHATWG lacked a patent policy. Dean Edwards, a Internet Explorer expert not affiliated with Microsoft, joined the WHATWG later.

	Even though the group of WHATWG members is invite-only, anyone is allowed to join the WHATWG mailing list and contribute technically, which makes the process open. ~~The editor acts as a benevolent dictator who writes the specifications taking into account the contributions~~. ~~The WHATWG members “provide overall guidance”, which means the power to impeach and replace the editor of the specifications~~.		Even though the group of WHATWG members is invite-only, anyone is allowed to join the WHATWG mailing list and contribute technically, which makes the process open. [...]

	Microsoft is not expected to implement the WHATWG specifications in Internet Explorer in the near term. Instead, the implementations of the WHATWG specifications for IE are expected to be built by teams not affiliated with Microsoft using the extensibility mechanisms provided by Microsoft in IE.

	~~I share the view of the Web that holds WebKit, Presto, Gecko and Trident (the engines of Safari, Opera, Mozilla/Firefox and IE, respectively) to be the most important browser engines~~.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Zcorpan: /* The Mozilla/Opera Joint Position Paper */ Omit compound documents and XBL reference

2018-09-25T14:47:38Z

The Mozilla/Opera Joint Position Paper: Omit compound documents and XBL reference

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 25 September 2018
Line 65:		Line 65:
	The paper took a position against device-specific profiles. This was in direct contrast with the Modularization of XHTML as well as mobile profiles of other W3C deliverables such as Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). The paper also took a position more favorable to scripting (JavaScript in practice) than what has been the general line in the W3C.		The paper took a position against device-specific profiles. This was in direct contrast with the Modularization of XHTML as well as mobile profiles of other W3C deliverables such as Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). The paper also took a position more favorable to scripting (JavaScript in practice) than what has been the general line in the W3C.

	~~The paper stated two design principles for compound documents (documents that mix different XML vocabularies): “Don’t overuse namespaces” and “Migration path”~~. ~~The latter was related to the problems with the HTML to XHTML migration discussed above~~. ~~The position paper was dismissive of schema languages.~~		[...]

	The paper went on to list specific features that a Web application host environment should provide. It made several references to XBL, which has been a very politicized language (but is now on track to become a W3C Recommendation).

	==== The WHATWG is Formed ====		==== The WHATWG is Formed ====

Zcorpan: Elaborate on testing

2018-09-25T09:45:32Z

Elaborate on testing

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 25 September 2018
Line 10:		Line 10:
	** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html		** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html
	** ?? many versions of canvas		** ?? many versions of canvas
	* Has ~~(or had?)~~ a Process that ~~encourages bad testing:~~ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ		* Has a Process that can [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ lead to working groups doing bad testing] (just be able to meet W3C process requirements for transitioning from Candidate Recommendation to final W3C Recommendation, and the test suite cannot be living when the rules are strictly applied)
	* CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))		* CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))

Zcorpan at 08:02, 25 September 2018

2018-09-25T08:02:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 25 September 2018
Line 199:		Line 199:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== ~~Post~~ W3C HTML5 Recommendation ===		=== W3C HTML5 Recommendation ===

	In October 2014, [https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4167 HTML5 is published as a W3C Recommendation].		In October 2014, [https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4167 HTML5 is published as a W3C Recommendation].

Zcorpan: Testing situation may be different today

2018-09-24T18:44:41Z

Testing situation may be different today

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 24 September 2018
Line 10:		Line 10:
	** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html		** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html
	** ?? many versions of canvas		** ?? many versions of canvas
	* Has a Process that encourages bad testing: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ		* Has (or had?) a Process that encourages bad testing: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ
	* CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))		* CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))

Zcorpan: Include history of W3C and WHATWG

2018-09-24T18:43:49Z

Include history of W3C and WHATWG

Show changes

Annevk at 08:15, 22 September 2014

2014-09-22T08:15:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:15, 22 September 2014
Line 10:		Line 10:
	** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html		** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0081.html
	** ?? many versions of canvas		** ?? many versions of canvas
			* Has a Process that encourages bad testing: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BnY1261cNJo/ItsnSsi36QQJ
	* CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))		* CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))

Hixie at 16:22, 12 September 2014

2014-09-12T16:22:00Z

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ** ?? many versions of canvas
 * CSS modularization (When designing the Fullscreen/<dialog> stacking model, the lack of a living standard spec for CSS that represented the current cutting edge status meant that features of CSS that were may have been overridden by one spec (e.g. CSS regions) were used by the proposal, without the implications being understood. (Specifically, it was suggested that CSS regions redefined how the containing block mechanism works; in general, without knowing what all the relevant specs are, there is no way to be sure that no other spec does in fact modify some underlying concept.))
 [[Category:Spec_coordination]]

Annevk: Annevk moved page TR strikes again to W3C

2014-09-12T11:00:17Z

Annevk moved page TR strikes again to W3C

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:00, 12 September 2014
(No difference)