The WHATWG's main focus is Web standards, specifically: +
The WHATWG’s main focus is Web standards, specifically:
HTML, which also includes Web @@ -66,22 +66,18 @@
There are lots of ways you can get involved, take a look and see - What you can do! + What you can do!
This video from Domenic Denicola is a good introduction to working with standards bodies.
Yes, everyone can contribute. There are no memberships fees involved, it's an open process. You +
Yes, everyone can contribute. There are no memberships fees involved, it’s an open process. You may easily participate on GitHub or subscribe to the WHATWG mailing lists. There are no meetings, since meetings prevent people with limited time or money from participating. -
Yes, see Code of Conduct. Please read it and respect it. -
Each standard has one or more editors, who are responsible for dealing with feedback for that document. Those editors read all the feedback, and, taking it into account along with research, studies, and feedback from many other sources (blogs, forums, IRC, etc.) make language design - decisions intended to address everyone's needs as well as possible while keeping the languages and + decisions intended to address everyone’s needs as well as possible while keeping the languages and APIs consistent.
This continues, with people sending more feedback, until nobody is able to convince the @@ -107,9 +103,9 @@ that we can avoid the spec containing material which implementors are later found to disagree with. -
This is not a consensus-based approach — there's no guarantee that everyone will be happy! - There is also no voting. There is a small oversight committee (known historically as the "WHATWG - members", from the name that the original charter used, though that +
This is not a consensus-based approach — there’s no guarantee that everyone will be happy! + There is also no voting. There is a small oversight committee (known historically as the “WHATWG + members”, from the name that the original charter used, though that terminology is misleading) who have the authority to override or replace editors if they start making bad decisions, but so far that has never happened in over ten years. This committee has a private mailing list, but it receives very few messages, usually going years with no emails at @@ -122,15 +118,15 @@ evaluate the various positions that have been put forward in a discussion, and figure out which one is strongest (or find another position that strikes a better balance between all of them). -
The purpose of debate at the WHATWG therefore isn't to convince everyone; it is to put forward +
The purpose of debate at the WHATWG therefore isn’t to convince everyone; it is to put forward the arguments that exist, so that the relevant editor can make a well-informed decision. As a corollary: If some points are made, rebutted, and not further defended, then maybe the person making the arguments is hoping that the relevant editor will consider the rebuttals weak, or thinks that the argument they have presented is strong despite the rebuttals. If you find someone is not making good arguments, or is ignoring your arguments, your best bet is to stop responding. - Repeating previously-stated arguments doesn't help, since the editors will see all the arguments + Repeating previously-stated arguments doesn’t help, since the editors will see all the arguments when they look at the thread. Similarly, as soon as threads start being meta-threads about - people's argumentation behaviour, we stop making any kind of useful progress, since that isn't + people’s argumentation behaviour, we stop making any kind of useful progress, since that isn’t input that can help the decision-making process later.
If you want feedback to be dealt with faster than "eventually", e.g., because you are about - to work on that feature and need the spec to be updated to take into account all previous - feedback, let the editors know by either emailing them, or contacting them on +
If you want feedback to be dealt with faster than “eventually”, e.g., because you are about to + work on that feature and need the spec to be updated to take into account all previous feedback, + let the editors know by either emailing them, or contacting them on IRC. Requests for priority feedback handling are - handled confidentially if desired so other implementers won't know that you are working on that + handled confidentially if desired so other implementers won’t know that you are working on that feature.
Anyone can ask for a feature to be removed; such feedback is considered like all other - feedback and is based on the merits of the arguments put forward. If it's been a few years and - there's no implementation, and no vendor is showing any interest in eventually implementing that - section; or if it's a section that browsers previously implemented but where the momentum shows + feedback and is based on the merits of the arguments put forward. If it’s been a few years and + there’s no implementation, and no vendor is showing any interest in eventually implementing that + section; or if it’s a section that browsers previously implemented but where the momentum shows that browsers are actually removing support, then it is highly likely that the request to remove - the section will be honoured. (Sometimes, a warning is first placed in the spec, as - with showModalDialog().) + the section will be honoured. (Sometimes, a warning is first placed in the spec.) -
If browsers don't widely implement a feature, or if authors don't use a feature, or if the +
If browsers don’t widely implement a feature, or if authors don’t use a feature, or if the uses of the feature are inconsequential or fundamentally wrong or damaging, then, after due consideration, features will be removed.
Forget about the particular solution you have in mind! Solution time is later! -
Write down a description of the underlying problem you're trying to solve. What are the +
Write down a description of the underlying problem you’re trying to solve. What are the use cases? A use case is an actual user wanting to do something. Then list requirements for each use case. For a good example of how to do this, see this email. @@ -196,21 +191,21 @@
Research existing solutions. Come up with new solutions. Try to keep the solutions as simple as possible, maybe only addressing the important use cases and leaving the nice to have - use cases for later (when there's implementation experience). Send this list of solutions, old - and new, as a comment on the feature's issue. Ask browser vendors for feedback. Maybe some - particular solutions don't fit with the browser's architecture, optimizations, etc., and just are - not going to be implemented no matter how much you like them. Strike those solutions and don't + use cases for later (when there’s implementation experience). Send this list of solutions, old + and new, as a comment on the feature’s issue. Ask browser vendors for feedback. Maybe some + particular solutions don’t fit with the browser’s architecture, optimizations, etc., and just are + not going to be implemented no matter how much you like them. Strike those solutions and don’t grieve about the loss!
Evaluate how well each of the remaining solutions address each use case and how well they meet the requirements. This step should show which solution is the technically best fit (might - turn out to be someone else's solution). + turn out to be someone else’s solution). -
Ask the spec's editor to put that solution in the spec, or create a pull request on GitHub - yourself. Possibly your text won't be taken verbatim but will be written in a style that is more +
Ask the spec’s editor to put that solution in the spec, or create a pull request on GitHub + yourself. Possibly your text won’t be taken verbatim but will be written in a style that is more suitable for implementors or better hooks in to the rest of the spec, etc. -
Ask browser vendors to implement the newly specified solution, even if it's just an +
Ask browser vendors to implement the newly specified solution, even if it’s just an experimental implementation. This implementation experience usually means that new problems are found with the solution that need to be addressed, or that a different solution is actually better. @@ -224,7 +219,7 @@
If the idea survives the above design process, the spec will be eventually updated to reflect - the new design. Implementations will then be updated to reflect the new design (if they aren't, + the new design. Implementations will then be updated to reflect the new design (if they aren’t, that indicates the new design is not good, and it will be reworked or removed). The spec will be updated to fix the many problems discovered by authors and implementors, over a period of several years, as more authors and implementors are exposed to the design. Eventually, a number of @@ -244,7 +239,7 @@ new proposed text are intentional or not (and should be fixed or not), or whether stylistic differences are intentional or not, etc. -
The WHATWG specifications are described as Living Standards. This means that they are standards that are continuously updated as they receive feedback, either from Web designers, browser @@ -269,7 +264,7 @@ specification mature, and implementations ship, the spec cannot be changed in backwards-incompatible ways (because the implementors would never agree to break compatibility unless for security reasons). The specifications are never complete, since the Web is continuously - evolving. The last time HTML was described as "complete" was after HTML4, when development stopped + evolving. The last time HTML was described as “complete” was after HTML4, when development stopped for several years, leading to stagnation. (If the Web is replaced by something better and dies, the HTML spec will die with it.) @@ -280,7 +275,7 @@
These snapshots are published as historical references. The WHATWG intends to keep these frozen snapshots available at their published URL permanently. -
The WHATWG operates as a W3C Community Group and thus uses the W3C Community Group patent policies. So far we have published one FSA with @@ -302,7 +297,7 @@ https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/.
Such translations are not normative (i.e., implementations should be sure to consult the - original). Due to the nature of living standards, which can change often, it's possible for + original). Due to the nature of living standards, which can change often, it’s possible for translations to become out of date compared to the original standard. If the translation shows signs of no longer being maintained, or has other quality problems, community members are encouraged to provide feedback to the maintainers of the standard, so that any links to the