[whatwg] Tim BL's HTML WG announcement and WHAT WG

[Lachlan Hunt]

Karl Dubost wrote:
> What will be interesting to see if they all perl, python, C, Ruby, etc. 
> libraries will follow this model once it is defined. It would be good I 
> guess for the new WG to gather implementation experience, not only in 
> desktop browsers but also in all applications consuming or producing HTML.
> 
> Though IMHO, layout engines are just one part of it.

The fact is that whatever we define must be compatible with desktop 
browsers above everything else.  That is what the vast majority of 
authors write HTML for, it's what they test in and it's how they expect 
all other tools to handle it.  I'm not saying that getting 
implementation experience from other tools wouldn't be valuable, just 
that it's far more practical for other tools to base their 
implementations on desktop browsers, than the other way around.

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells wrote:
> In addition, if the role of the W3C is simply to to place
> its seal of approval on what /is/, rather than on what
> /should be/, then I for one would find that a very
> disturbing (not to say depressing) state of affairs.

The W3C needs to release specs that can actually be useful in the real 
world, not ones that are just nice in theory, but totally impractical to 
implement.  For HTML, if the W3C released another specification that 
required SGML parsing, it would be completely useless because it is 
practically impossible for browser vendors to conform to such 
requirements without breaking a significant portion of existing web sites.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/