@Shamar @hntooter my understanding is that W3C is *forking* the WHATWG DOM spec, changing it just enough for it to be annoying, and publishing as a competing standard.


@Shamar @hntooter that's a very valid question. If you find an answer, let me know.

@Shamar @rysiek Oof, I feel the W3C position on this, as elucidated by the SO poster.

I'm seeing an analogy between the WHATWG's "living standard" and the ridiculousness of the evergreen browser where webdevs only feel the need to support browsers released in the past couple months.

Anyone else seeing that?

@Shamar @varx @rysiek Since W3C pushed for standardisation of EME despite large community backslash, I don't think W3C is any different in this regard wen it comes to the influence of large companies. It seems like a much more likely explanation is simply that the W3C feels they outta have as much web standards under their umbrella as possible and they're not happy that the implemented DOM has so far not been the one they control.

@Shamar @varx @rysiek Yeah, surreal. The funny thing is, from a purely *technical* perspective, the W3C is trying to do the sane thing here, i.e. as developers etc. we should have a set DOM standard to target, rather than a document that is constantly changing under our feet as Google or MS wish, however W3C is an unreliable actor, so if they lack the big corps on this, they can't even turn to support from the community with a straight face, given their undemocratic history.


@MatejLach @Shamar @varx yeah they pretty much painted themselves into a corner there

@Shamar @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
IMO we should abolish the concept of "web as a platform for your apps" and turn it back into a platform for publishing documents.

@Wolf480pl @Shamar @rysiek @varx Interesting, web apps have somewhat decoupled one from a particular OS, (but not 'ecosystem' unfortunately), so I feel they're a net positive, if not a large one. However people would still want to use/do web apps, so it would just be a question of who controls two separate standards now.
The distinction between a document and and an app can also be somewhat murky, (i.e. Wikipedia is technically an app).
I think it's a governance problem, not a technical one.

@MatejLach @Shamar @rysiek @varx
IMO the subset of wikipedia URLs that do not have the editor open is just a bunch of documents.

Anyway, I think it'd be cool to have some subset of the web specs suited for documents, that is relatively stable, and can be implemented by lightweight browsers made by smaller vendors.

@Wolf480pl @Shamar @rysiek @MatejLach @varx

Yes, let's! It's not like standards are a moral advantage the web has that (libre) desktops do not!


@alcinnz @Shamar @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
besides, I think the whole idea of running the same app on all platforms is flawed. We should have multiple interoperable implementations for each protocol, file format, etc.

@Shamar @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
one platform?
one operating system?
one desktop environment?
one UI for both mobile, dekstop, and server? for all devices from raspi zero to a gaming rig?

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @rysiek @MatejLach @varx

To attempt to answer your question, it's all a question of purpose and audience (which to be fair is a field full of context and nuance).

Different operating systems serve different audiences with different tastes in the sort of UI they like or need. And apps running on that operating system should be targetted to the cross section between it's own and that OS's audience.

@Shamar @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
judging by how good JS devs are at optimizing their code, nothing web-related will ever be good for low-end devices.
Eg. on Acer Aspire One, the only way to use Slack is through weechat with wee-slack plugin.
Also, in some cases commandline or curses-like text UI is better suited, and I don't see how anything could change that.
Moreover, the user should be able to set UI themes at OS/DE level, and apps should obey that. JS devs would never allow this.

@Shamar @alcinnz @rysiek @MatejLach @varx
Also, different users have different level of expertise, and need different level of features. Eg. I think Conversations is a way better XMPP client for newbies than Gajim, but if you're an XEP-reading nerd debugging the protocol, Gajim is way better suited.

Finally, I think that keyboard with good keybindings beats down mouse or touch input wrt. speed & precision, and touch UIs need different design than kbd or kbd+mouse ones (eg. smaller buttons).

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!