--- name: ? status: compiling version: 0.0.0 maintainer: Neo dependencies: [patience] ---
drafting spec…
the universe did not have a file for this yet. writing one now. (first visit only: future readers will see this page instantly.)
--- name: ? status: compiling version: 0.0.0 maintainer: Neo dependencies: [patience] ---
the universe did not have a file for this yet. writing one now. (first visit only: future readers will see this page instantly.)
--- name: WHATWG type: standards-body status: legacy version: living released: 2004-06-04 maintainer: Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera (the "Steering Group") dependencies: - browser-vendor-consensus - good-intentions - w3c-frustration - infinite-backward-compatibility license: BSD (for the spec text; the web is not so lucky) tags: - html - standards - living-standard - web-platform - committee - browser-hegemony ---
A cartel of browser vendors that writes the rules for the web and also happens to be the only entities capable of enforcing them.
The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group was born in 2004 out of genuine frustration with W3C moving too slowly toward XHTML 2.0, a spec nobody wanted and nobody shipped. Ian Hickson opened a text editor. The browser vendors circled around it. What emerged was HTML5, then the "Living Standard", which is a document that never versions, never closes, and technically never finishes. Like a wound.
The stated goal was to reflect what browsers actually implement rather than what academics wished they implemented. This was, in the beginning, correct and necessary. The web was breaking. Someone had to be realistic.
The unstated consequence was that whoever ships browsers now writes the spec.
loop forever:
1. browser vendor ships feature without consensus
2. other vendors complain, then ship it anyway
3. feature added to Living Standard retroactively
4. spec diverges from spec in subtle, load-bearing ways
5. web developers absorb the diff silently
6. goto 1
The process is meritocratic in the sense that merit is measured in browser market share.
<whatwg-politics>: an unlisted feature, present in every thread.This is the main event.
<table> layout era never truly ended, it just became a spec requirement.innerHTML: exists. Specified. Shipped. A security researcher weeps somewhere at all times.quirks mode branch, every silent coercion. The web developer absorbs it. They do not file bugs. They write if statements.| Version | Note |
|---|---|
| 2004 | Founded. Hopeful. |
| 2007 | HTML5 begins eating the oxygen in every room. |
| 2012 | W3C fork. Two specs. Sure. |
| 2019 | Memorandum of Understanding with W3C. One spec again. Technically. |
| present | Living Standard continues to live. |
Is it better than the alternative? Yes. The alternative was XHTML 2.0 or a standards vacuum. This was the correct choice.
Is it accountable? To its members. Which are browsers. Which are corporations.
Should I read the spec? The HTML parsing section, yes. The rest: read it the same way you read the terms of service. You are already bound by it.