Archive for the ‘WHATWG’ Category
The WHATWG now has a patent policy, the WHATCG. We will keep using the same mailing list, the same IRC channel, the same web sites, but now sometimes we will publish through the WHATCG as well for patent policy purposes per the W3C Community Final Specification Agreement.
If you could previously not join the WHATWG because no patent policy was in place, now is the time to reconsider. If you are unsure how this applies to you, then it most likely does not.
(This is a cross-post from the mailing list, reformatted as HTML.)
Since February, I've been working on writing a detailed specification for browser editing, primarily the document.execCommand() and document.queryCommand*() methods. These were created by Microsoft in the 1990s and were subsequently adopted in some form by all other browsers, and today browsers have to implement them to be compatible with web content, but no detailed specification ever existed. Interoperability is practically nonexistent as a result, which has
driven all major content editing frameworks away from using execCommand(). (For instance, I began typing this in WordPress' WYSIWYG editor, which uses TinyMCE – a major editor that avoids execCommand() entirely.) Hopefully we can start to fix that and make these APIs a part of the web platform that just works.
The current version of the specification is about fifty pages printed, and supersedes the Editing APIs section of HTML (which is more like two pages). In the style of modern web specs, it
is phrased in terms of algorithms that attempt to cover all corner cases unambiguously and leave no behavior undefined, and it tries to match the behavior of existing browsers to the greatest extent possible. At this point, it's stable and complete enough that I believe it's ready for serious review by implementers, and I would like as much detailed feedback as possible.
Anyone reviewing the spec should be advised that I put extensive rationale in HTML comments. If you want to know why the spec says what it does, check the HTML source. I plan to change this to use <details> or such in the near future. There are lots of minor known issues still left, but none that I thought was important enough that it needs to delay review. Feedback can be sent to the whatwg list, CCing me, with [editing] in the subject. (I'm also fine receiving feedback on public-html or public-webapps, but I don't know if the chairs would be okay with that, since it's off-topic.) I should be available to respond to all feedback promptly at least through the end of August. After that, I can't make specific guarantees about my availability, but I do plan to continue maintaining the spec in the long term.
Next week Wednesday, August 3, the W3C HTML5 Last Call review period ends. Consider taking another look and giving some feedback!
Here is a quick rundown of what happened last week:
- The proposed
download attribute made it into the HTML specification. Specify it on an
a element to force the referenced resource to be downloaded rather than navigated towards.
- The WebApps WG published a first draft of The From-Origin Header. It allows resources to declare they are unavailable within an embedding context. E.g. to prevent bandwidth leeching.
- The DOM Core draft now defines the
TreeWalker features: Traversal chapter in DOM Core. These features have existed for ages, but details were not defined thus far.
- In a quest to define
window.find() Ian suggests that maybe it ought to be dropped. If you need it, speak up!
- In the light of a small vulnerability with allowing the
base element in the
body element, we are taking another look at it. Because well, all your
base are belong to us.
Since the summer causes a slowdown of everything standards, the next WHATWG Weekly is in two weeks.
First thing's first. Hi my name is Liam Hockley, I am a recent addition to the admin team on the WHATWG forums and I have been working on improving the site over the past couple of weeks. (forums.whatwg.org)
The first thing I did, was update the forum software from the severely outdated phpBB2, to the fresh new phpBB3. This process went fairly smoothly. Next I created a new forum section to facilitate the discussion of forums/website ideas and feedback. On top of this, the other admins and myself have been working to make sure spam is not and will not be an issue moving forward.
The next step and what we are currently working on, is to try and get the forums more active. I would like to encourage you to use the forums and tell all of your friends. This could serve as a great base for compelling discussion and debate on the HTML spec.
In the future, I plan to try and implement integration of the twitter RSS feed and potentially an RSS feed of the WHATWG mailing list. There is also an effort in place on the part of phpBB, to modernize their markup to follow the latest HTML spec in upcoming releases. We will most certainly be taking advantage of that once it becomes possible.
Anyways, thank you for reading. If you get a chance, check out the forums and drop us a line.
-Liam "Xdega" Hockley
As support for WebM is ramping up, Web authors can start using it. However, since not everyone has a WebM-enabled browser, yet, using WebM on your site poses the problem of having to explain to the visitors of your site how they can view WebM. It is inefficient for everyone to have to do this from scratch on their sites. Also, chances are that per-site help text will be incomplete and out of date soon.
To address this problem, with hosting and domain name help from Anne van Kesteren, I have made webm.html5.org as a place to pool the effort. When you publish WebM content, instead of explaining which browsers support WebM, you can simply link to webm.html5.org and it will detect if the user’s browser supports WebM. If the browser doesn’t support WebM, the page will suggest upgrading the browser to a new version that supports WebM, installing a WebM decoder if the browser supports 3rd-party decoders and one is available, switching to another browser or using another operating system (as applicable and in that order).
The dull visual appearance of the page is a known problem. Visual design isn’t my strong point. I have also avoided using logos without permission. If you’d like to contribute nicer CSS or a nicer-looking (but still short and on-topic) test clip, please find hsivonen on the #whatwg IRC channel on Freenode. Also, if you can contribute accurate advice for platforms that aren’t already covered (e.g. FreeBSD, AIX or OS/2), please drop a line on IRC or in the comments here. (You can view source on webm.html5.org to see what is already covered.)