I dunno, perhaps if the W3C and WHATWG produced radically different specifications, one of them would be explicitly rejected by everyone and thus die a clean death. That might be better than having two very similar, equally authoritative, but subtly different specifications, one of which is sort of but not quite a snapshot of the other.
Comments
I dunno, perhaps if the W3C and WHATWG produced radically different specifications, one of them would be explicitly rejected by everyone and thus die a clean death. That might be better than having two very similar, equally authoritative, but subtly different specifications, one of which is sort of but not quite a snapshot of the other.
Equally authoritative? I had no idea WHATWG was drafting specifications, let alone considered authoritative.
Many of the foundational specifications of the web are authored and maintained by the WHATWG these days: https://spec.whatwg.org/
- DOM, HTML: obvious
- URL, Encoding, Fetch: foundational building blocks
- XHR, Fullscreen, Notifications: important features
There are also other up-and-coming specs like Books, Figures, Streams, or Loader (the latter two not listed).
The spec site doesn't load for me on Firefox with RC4 disabled:
Well, perhaps you haven't kept up then. It's a while since W3C was considered either authoritative or relevant for the modern web.
HTML5 is most all WHATWG.