Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Others Join Hands To Form WebPlatform.org

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the when-our-powers-combine dept.

Businesses 138

hypnosec writes "Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces and launched a new resource – the Web Platform in a bid to create a 'definitive resource' for all open Web technologies. The companies have come together to provide developers with a single source of all the latest information about HTML5, CSS3, WebGL, SVG and other Web standards. The platform will also offer tips and best practices on web development as well as web technologies. 'We are an open community of developers building resources for a better web, regardless of brand, browser or platform,' notes the WebPlatform site."

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP Bitches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590211)

FP Bitches!

Re:FP Bitches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590287)

Nice work, Ensign Craigpanda Davenport Mcpherson Asspussy

FRIST PLZ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590235)

OOo hea jhf mfeo e me fmelfmef

Re:FRIST PLZ (0)

Myopic (18616) | about 2 years ago | (#41590571)

Oh, burn. By only one minute you bonked your chance at finally scoring a first post.

huh (1, Funny)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#41590255)

this site seems like the apple maps (in analogy) version of w3schools.

Re:huh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590283)

w3schools is sort of terrible. I think you mean MDN.

Re:huh (2)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#41590315)

i was talking features, not design. this thing is missing stuff http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/tutorials/optimizing_css [webplatform.org] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/tutorials/css_transforms [webplatform.org]

Re:huh (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41590331)

Really? A brand new website is not as comprehensive as one that has been around for 13 years? Shocking!!

Re:huh (2)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#41590527)

what's _really_ shocking is that a brand new website which promises to be COMPLETE AND FULL REFERENCE of platform X, a website not done by AMATEURS but by the biggest companies around with hundreds of billion of dollars available in their pockets, goes live incomplete and unfinished.

Re:huh (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41590559)

No, that's pretty unshocking. Documentation takes time to write. It'll get more comprehensive with time.

Re:huh (1)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#41590597)

I know, I know, it's not the first time that companies rush unfinished products to consumers.

Google, the poster child for beta (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41590595)

what's _really_ shocking is that a brand new website [...] done [...] by the biggest companies around with hundreds of billion of dollars available in their pockets, goes live incomplete and unfinished.

Not shocking. Google is part of this effort, and it's the poster child for taking a "beta" version live and tweaking it later.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590385)

w3schools does not have the detailed reference materials that MDN has. w3schools is terrible feature wise as well compared to MDN.

Do you know what alpha means? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41590689)

I was talking features, not design. this thing is missing stuff

I would think that the big box at the main Docs page explaining that the docs subsite was in alpha would have, you know, explained that.

Re:Do you know what alpha means? (1)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#41590871)

i do. it means rushing an unfinished product.

Re:Do you know what alpha means? (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 2 years ago | (#41591827)

i do. it means rushing an unfinished free source of information.

ftfy

Re:Do you know what alpha means? (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41591155)

Never even got that far. Saw the abortion that is the front page on my phone and bailed immediately.

Re:Do you know what alpha means? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591735)

damn side nicer than this horrible thing [whatwg.org] or this fecal matter. [w3schools.com]

Re:huh (4, Interesting)

BZ (40346) | about 2 years ago | (#41590473)

Except with any luck unlike w3schools it won't have incorrect information on it because people will be able to fix it like any other wiki.

The big problem with w3schools is that there's all sorts of mistakes on there and they won't fix things if you point out the problems.

Re:huh (1)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#41590885)

that's my point: "it won't", not "it doesn't".

Re:huh (1)

BZ (40346) | about 2 years ago | (#41592427)

If you see incorrect things ... it's a wiki. Fix them. I certainly plan to, which I can't do with w3schools!

Re:huh (2)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#41591589)

What he said. Holy crap...

Uh huh... (3, Insightful)

undeadbill (2490070) | about 2 years ago | (#41590261)

I'll believe that when I see their products running under Free or Open BSD. Unless "any" is really a very narrow definition of specific Linux Distros, MS Windows, and OS X.

Re:Uh huh... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41590299)

Yes, they are referring to operating systems that are actually relevant to the average computer user. The operating systems vying for the last .01% of market share are hardly of note.

Re:Uh huh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590317)

BSD is real freedom, for users and developers. Take the code, do what you want.

Re:Uh huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590605)

BSD is real freedom, for users and developers. Take the code, do what you want.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Re:Uh huh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590751)

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

That's my take on it. But hell, I'm quite happy using Windows 7 and OS X in my day to day life.

Still, he has a point. You can argue freedom all you want, but Linux - or anything else covered by the GPL - doesn't have it. One could argue that BSD does not, either - the BSD license requires attribution, last time I checked.

Still a damned sight more 'free' than GPL'd code, but you still can't 'do what you want', if what you want to do is remove a comment header for some reason.

Re:Uh huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590775)

take code make program sell it and make a large profit from it and laugh all the way to the bank

Re:Uh huh... (3, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#41590921)

Which some people are perfectly fine with. Isn't it better that these companies use mature, well-debugged BSD code rather than rolling their own shit that is usually many times worse because they were going to avoid the GPL anyway?

Re:Uh huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590665)

Actually, it says "regardless of brand, browser or platform."

This shouldn't be a problem for real web standards; a correctly coded web page should look just fine in Konqueror running under ReactOS, or the Haiku native browser, or whatever.

Re:Uh huh... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41590877)

Yes and the person was whining specifically about their products not being ported to some niche OSes. That was what I responded, too. Yes, you are correct as well.

Re:Uh huh... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#41590319)

I'll believe that when I see their products running under Free or Open BSD. Unless "any" is really a very narrow definition of Windows 8 and OS X.

FTFY.

Cue 'augmenting the standards' in 5... 4... 3...

actually, it's web 3.0 (3, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41590419)

Actually, get ready! it's going to be web 3.0! That means it'll be incompatible with web 2.0.

Re:actually, it's web 3.0 (2)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41590479)

Will it come with a start button?

Re:actually, it's web 3.0 (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41591489)

no but it'll come with a clickthrough EULA for the icon grid...

Re:Uh huh... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41590557)

So long as said products are open source, isn't the standing rule in the FOSS community "go port it yourself if you need it"?

Re:Uh huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590699)

Yeah, if only there was a project that could bring standard, cross-platform web technologies to everybody. Imagine, a kit of web stuff that anybody could use for free, even on BSD... maybe as a joke, they could even challenge Apple to contribute, since, you know, Apple hates openness.

*sigh* If only.

w3schools (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41590263)

So its basically an alpha reimplementation of w3schools?

http://www.w3schools.com/ [w3schools.com]

Re:w3schools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590357)

W3schools are a set of tutorials at best. They are not a "definitive resource" by any stretch of imagination. It is fine when you are starting, but extremely insufficient after the first two weeks of learning. They explain only basic parameters, never all of them. Never explain special case, error handling or anything else you actually need. (Yes, I'm blocking them in my google last two months, but I doubt they got better in the meantime.)

Re:w3schools (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41590677)

They are not a "definitive resource" by any stretch of imagination.

which w3schools or webplatform?

Go to webplatform main page, click on html5, get "alpha" warning, a list of 9 issue/error tags, scroll down to "You can help documenting the list of HTML and related elements." and click on the link at the end "list of html and related elements" and get "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.".

I guess the general feeling I'm getting is W3schools is proven to be operate at "somewhat less than reference quality" level, and the new shiny is currently orders of magnitude worse than w3schools but hope springs eternal and maybe someday it'll be far better... someday... maybe...

Re:w3schools (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590431)

But W3Schools is painful. No, really, painful.
Any time I google for anything, I avoid it like the plague now.
I'd sooner read a damn blogspot post than it.

And this isn't even getting in to the (inconsistent) website design itself. That is far worse.

Yeah, it ain't the worst resource, but polished turd etc.
A turd might be filled with information on the species that crapped it out, but it is still a turd.

Re:w3schools (5, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#41590637)

You mean this?

http://w3fools.com/ [w3fools.com]

like this one by w3fools??? (2)

elloGov (1217998) | about 2 years ago | (#41591727)

www.w3schools.com/js/js_popup.asp. alert() and confirm() dialogs with no explanation that they should generally be avoided. Also no discussion of console.log() for debugging purposes.

Hmmm, lets see...
1. Snub w3schools for not diving into advanced topics as to not overwhelm newcomers.
2. Not acknowledge the cases where alert and confirm dialogs are sufficient solutions.
3. Criticize w3schools.com for lack of giving explanation while you yourself don't give an explanation.
4. Advocating the use of console.log while knowing that console object isn't supported by all browsers.

Re:like this one by w3fools??? (2)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about 2 years ago | (#41591993)

1. Snub w3schools for posing as a developer resource while targeting newbies.
2. Point out that in general the alert and confirm dialogs have better alternatives.
3. Criticize w3schools.com for lack of giving explanation while pointing at resources that do [w3fools.com] .
4. Advocating the use of console.log while knowing that the console object isn't supported by IE, which should be avoided as a debugging tool anyway.

FTFY

Re:w3schools (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about 2 years ago | (#41591175)

In the long run, I see it as a replacement for W3C and WHATWG.
Seeing Google, Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla working on common ground is extremely exciting.
Question is, will this initiative survive more than a week or two.
Example: Microsoft + Webgl = goodbye DirectX
That would not be popular. Especially when you think about all trouble Silverlight caused when replaced by HTML5 as the future web platform.

I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs (4, Informative)

elloGov (1217998) | about 2 years ago | (#41591639)

I seriously question the web expertise of anyone who snubs w3schools as a "terrible", "painful" resource for web development. If you are looking for a copy-paste reference of best practices, w3schools isn't it. Nor is w3schools.com a definitive guide. However, there isn't a resource that is more user-friendly than w3schools on many of the web topics.
http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/obj_location.asp [w3schools.com] V https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.location [mozilla.org]

Moreover, w3schools.com does a fantastic job in maintaining the big picture of web development by separating its components in its reference pages; DOM, JavaScript, CSS, HTML, etc..
Anyone stating otherwise is full of it. The tutorials, layout, and "Try it Out' execution environment are quick and fantastic for those not interested in reading a blog. 95% of the reference needed w3schools.com has. The other 5%, as a seasoned web developer you should see blog entries, quirksmode, msdn, mdn, etc. and/or investigate in an execution environment such as firebug.
The subtle nuances, nit-picky details, over-simplification, or the lack of mention of say "getBoundingClientRect" doesn't invalidate the awesomeness of w3schools, and it certainly doesn't make it suck. Mastering a topic shouldn't turn you into a snob.
I strongly recommend w3schools.com to anyone who wants to get a good grasp of web development without diving into the advanced topics or anyone who wants a quick reference look up.

Just my two cents!

Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs (2)

Bogtha (906264) | about 2 years ago | (#41592233)

I don't see how a tutorial site can be considered user-friendly if it teaches incorrect things and bad practices. That's pretty damn hostile to beginners, even if it's sugar-coated enough to make it not immediately apparent. I and many others complained loudly and tried many times over the course of years to correct their glaring mistakes and things like code that would only work in Internet Explorer and it all fell on deaf ears. They aren't making a good faith effort in teaching people, the tutorials are just a marketing vehicle for their worthless certs. This is abusive and predatory to beginners and they should not be recommended by anybody.

It's a trap, right? (4, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41590271)

Surely to get those companies together, there must be some nefarious agenda afoot.

Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41590569)

I can't tell whether it's malice or incompetence. Is it likely that the developers of web browsers bundled with operating systems are leaving certain APIs unimplemented on purpose to encourage the development of OS-specific native apps? I'm talking about SNI, HTML5 offline manifests (with a quota suitable for video), HTML5 local storage (also with a quota suitable for video), WebGL, the video element with the WebM codec, the file API, and getUserMedia. Web apps won't replace native apps until web developers can rely on most of these.

Re:Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41591367)

Mod parent up!

No one sees the danger to this. PCMag does see an anology to webkit and IE 6 [pcmag.com] . W3C is coming out with an HTML 5 spec that is not the same as WHatG. I agree with the W3C approach of splitting up HTML 5 into 5 and 5.1 and same with CSS 3 and 3.1 but still it is a problem. WIth pressure from sites like www.html5test.com that test cutting edge features you have browsers using proprietary implementations and then bashing the others for being behind the times even though half that shit is not even in the W3C spec!

I can imagine with mobile units taken over that webkit will be the next trident as websites in 10 years will be targeted just for that and than have scripts for legacy w3c like in the dark days. Worse the APIs will be IOS or Android only.

Re:Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#41591749)

Oh, come on. HTML5 offline manifests and local storage work positively flawlessly compared to contentEditable support, undo management, copy-and-paste handling, DOM Ranges....

These days, a good day of web app development is one in which I discover fewer than one critical browser bug every two or three hours of coding. I won't tell you what a bad day looks like because I don't want to crush anyone's soul....

Re:It's a trap, right? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41590601)

Surely to get those companies together, there must be some nefarious agenda afoot.

The footer logos, the testimonials section, etc. all lack Apple. But then they're on the list.

I'd guess they joined at the last minute. Maybe they were a target at one point? Which would be ironic as the pre iOS-SDK days were all about "no native apps".

Re:It's a trap, right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590619)

Zat is not my fingarr!

Fuck the web! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590275)

Too bad web technologies all blow ass. To be a mouth-breathing web developer takes not much more skill than talking and walking. Although even that is a challenge for some web devs.

Re:Fuck the web! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590645)

Can you please explain this "mouth-breather" meme? Is it just a Slashdot thing? (doesn't seem to exist elsewhere as far as I can tell) I have no idea what it's referring to.

Re:Fuck the web! (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41590789)

Is it just a Slashdot thing? (doesn't seem to exist elsewhere as far as I can tell)

Hardly. I was hearing it in the American South (as opposed to South America) in the early 90s.

Think of "mouth hanging open with amazement" for something not particularly amazing. Exclamation of "wow" at a demonstration of the blink tag followed by mouth breathing.

As Americans have gotten fatter it also seems to be used for "too fat to propel the walmart cart at walking speed without mouth hanging open" but this is a rare use. Also rare use in the poser community, as in eats 5 bags of cheetos per day thus fat thus has to mouth breathe, but it takes a bit more than cheeto eating to be a real web dev or real linux dev or whatever. Some "snot nosed kid" analogy thus has to mouth breathe, "kid" not necessarily meaning young, but always meaning noob.

Re:Fuck the web! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590937)

It's a British thing, AFAIK.
People who have their mouths open all the time, like it's too much mental effort to close it and breathe through their noses.
"Slack-jawed yokel", you might say.

This is needed because ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590511)

"Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces and launched a new resource – the Web Platform in a bid to create a 'definitive resource' for all open Web technologies"

That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion, we'd never have ... a ... what? a search engine for referencing 'open' technologies?

Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) open source, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies? What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now? ... or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

Re:This is needed because ... (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41590763)

Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) open source, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?

Funny that you dropped the "web" out of open web technologies. The reason they are important is because they are the main implementors of the open web technologies at issue.

What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now?

The intent is to provide quality documentation, not implementations. In many cases, the implementations are provided as open source (in some cases, by the same companies involved in this project for informational resources related to the technologies.)

or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

It has nothing to do with open source, but its not a redefinition, either. "Open" in "open web technologies" is used to mean "open specification" rather than "open source", which is a fairly common existing use, not a "redefinition."

Re:This is needed because ... (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41591879)

Despite what todays XKCD [xkcd.com] , we were really in place where a lack of corporate cohesion was about to lead us to a web that only worked with IE. Todays web has lead to a world where an always on connection means that one does not need MS Office, Bing is a reasonable alternative to Google, and Apple will either the get maps right or bring enough traffic to other map agents that they will.

Due to litigation and competition, we have an much more open web. We have many more options for cheap offline storage. Unlike the time when MS was about to control all our lives, we know have a vigorous interaction between powerful firms. They are not friends, and hopefully they never will be, but there know the values of standards.

Strange (4, Interesting)

De Lemming (227104) | about 2 years ago | (#41590531)

On the bottom of the front page are 9 logos, Apple is not one of them. On the Stewards page [webplatform.org] are 10 organisations/companies, including Apple. But Apple is the only one without a link to a description/statement of the company. They seem to be the neglected stepchild here?

And Slasdot puts them first in the title, and categorizes the article in the Apple section :-)

Re:Strange (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41591359)

Apple and Google are currently suing each other over whose logo will be placed higher than the other.

Re:Strange (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591391)

After asking in the IRC chat, Doug Schepers (shepazu) responded by saying that Apple was contributing but had requested that their logo not appear on the front page.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591497)

They're listed in alphabetical order

CONSPIRACY AVERTED

Re:Strange (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591667)

Except it's in the Apple category on slashdot, even though the official website doesn't mention Apple *anywhere at all* except for a single link to "#" with the label "Apple" on a single hard to find page (not linked from anywhere in the homepage).

There are lots of places, like the footer of the main site, that list all the other companies but not Apple.

There is definitely something weird going on. It certainly shouldn't be in the "Apple" section of slashdot, and the article headline shouldn't list three sponsors (including Apple) while ignoring all the other corporations who actually are officially behind it.

This is needed because ... (2)

quietwalker (969769) | about 2 years ago | (#41590609)

(this time not posted as AC, so it shows up ... )

"Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces and launched a new resource – the Web Platform in a bid to create a 'definitive resource' for all open Web technologies"

That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion, we'd never have ... a ... what? a search engine for referencing 'open' technologies?

Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) to open source projects, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies? What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now? ... or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

Re:This is needed because ... (3, Insightful)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | about 2 years ago | (#41590857)

Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) to open source projects, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?

Because together those companies create much of the software and hardware that is interpreting open web protocols and formats. This is hopefully a step towards recognizing that proprietary technologies that only work on one vendor's platform are detrimental rather than beneficial for lock in. Maybe the next time you notice browser C is interpreting that HTML tag differently than everyone else there will be a place to point to that the maker of browser C has their name up as a collaborator.

Re:This is needed because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591991)

You fail to see grandparent's point.

For example, documentation of HTML video doesn't mention the difficulties inflicted upon it by different encoding policies by different competing companies. Documentation by corporate committee is unreliable because at any point it can be corrupted.

Re:This is needed because ... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#41591291)

That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion

How is this 'collusion'? What are you implying they are actually doing?

but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?

Because by and large they are the biggest implementors of those technologies, it makes sense that they do it over groups who's products most people probably never use.

What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see, of course nobody is forcing you to use it, if you don't see any reason to use it then don't.

or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

No, the word 'open' is not tied to 'open source', you don't have to redefine it to use it in a context that doesn't pertain to open source.

Because by and large they are the biggest implemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591381)

Apache foundation?

Re:This is needed because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591529)

This is needed (and has been needed for many years) because simply making a decent multi-browser website required piles of refrence documentation to make it presentable. Corporate competition to show something flashier has has always gotten in the way of unified standards in this area. I hope it works this time but I'm not holding my breath.

Here's a free best practice for them (4, Insightful)

jb_nizet (98713) | about 2 years ago | (#41590639)

Underline the damn links (which are one of the main reasons why the web was invented). Undecorated links, using a color which is very close to the normal text color, makes them indistinguishible from normal text for even lightly color-blind people like me, and like 10% of the male population.

Re:Here's a free best practice for them (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41590787)

In Opera you can use a custom css file with !important declarations to modify the appearance of certain elements (like links) on every page.

Re:Here's a free best practice for them (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 2 years ago | (#41590841)

From the sounds of it, that should work with any other custom style sheets thing, like Stylish, right? That actually sounds rather helpful from an accessibility standpoint (if a little bit annoying to set up). Still, it shouldn't be hard to make good-looking links on a webpage.

Re:Here's a free best practice for them (1)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#41591185)

Although I quite agree with you, they don't necessarily need to be underlined, just significantly differentiated from norrmal text.

Re:Here's a free best practice for them (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#41592013)

Disagree. Links are underlined and a different color (to differentiate from plain underline)

Un-underlined links don't look like links and I'd guess at best 0.0004% of the world does that.

Re:Here's a free best practice for them (2)

crywalt (2426042) | about 2 years ago | (#41592349)

Removing link underlining was something a lot of Web designers couldn't wait for, and every one I know (designers and programmers) was thrilled when it was finally implemented. Turning off underlining is one of the first things I did with any Web browser the first time I ran it. (I'm not sure if I've had to do it recently.) It's one of the first things I do when designing any site and I check it in IE and see IE still underlines links by default. (Also removing the blue border from around linked images.) Underlines are terrible. Underlined links always remind me of 1996.

Re:Here's a free best practice for them (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#41591855)

you mean like /. does in the comment header ;)

Riiiight, and the real reason is ... ? (1)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#41590657)

So, four major players in the tech market, at least three of whom have quite clearly demonstrated a very vested interest in closedness, are "joining forces for openness"?

OK, what's the hidden agenda?

Re:Riiiight, and the real reason is ... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591369)

Documentation for free?

Re:Riiiight, and the real reason is ... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591609)

So, four major players in the tech market, at least three of whom have quite clearly demonstrated a very vested interest in closedness, are "joining forces for openness"?

Apple contributes a lot to WebKit and CUPS, Microsoft has released TypeScript and F# under permissive Open Source licenses as well as much of ASP.NET, Adobe contributes to WebKit as well as jQuery Mobile and the Open Source Flex framework. It works well for conspiracy nutcases to pretend as though these companies aren't massive groups with thousands of employees with many different goals and that they are one-track-mind closed companies where everything they do is focused on the goal of closed/proprietary standards/technologies/source but thankfully the reality is very different.

Re:Riiiight, and the real reason is ... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41592401)

So, four major players in the tech market, at least three of whom have quite clearly demonstrated a very vested interest in closedness, are "joining forces for openness"?

OK, what's the hidden agenda?

Try to battle the rise of LAMP servers on the net?

I'm confused... (1)

ClaraBow (212734) | about 2 years ago | (#41590661)

"Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces" -- I must have woken up in a alternate planet! This is beautiful man! I think I feel a little tear coming.... ;-)

PR or Free Labor... maybe both (1)

El Fantasmo (1057616) | about 2 years ago | (#41590683)

This is either:

1. A PR stunt to appeal to those who don't know much about open source things in general. Now the big tech companies look like they're doing something benevolent and giving to society.

or

2. A place for unsuspecting people to post code or ideas and have them freely adopted by the big tech companies, who will in turn charge you for THEIR enhancements and innovations.

IRC? (1)

juventasone (517959) | about 2 years ago | (#41590709)

This site is all about uber-modern web standards and their chat protocol of choice? IRC. Awesome.

Re:IRC? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41591527)

heh... I still IRC through the Telnet client...

Way to go! (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about 2 years ago | (#41590823)

Applause

Oh, f**k... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590887)

So the mayans are right????

Got My Hopes Up (1)

crywalt (2426042) | about 2 years ago | (#41590965)

The headline got my hopes up for a second. I thought for a moment that the companies had gotten together to build a new Web standard. Instead they're just re-documenting the old, broken standards, and presumably all the half-assed implementations every Web developer is forced to wrangle with just to get "Hello, world" up and running. "Looks fine in Firefox but IE6 displays ', ', IE7 indents it halfway across the page, and Chrome is showing '72 101 108 108 111 44 32 119 111 114 108 100'." "Have you tried it in Opera? How about on the iPad?" "WAT"

Re:Got My Hopes Up (1)

crywalt (2426042) | about 2 years ago | (#41590981)

And, amusingly, /. won't display the Cyrillic characters I put in for IE6 for humor purposes.

Re:Got My Hopes Up (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41591305)

So we would have 3 incompatible standards. W3C, WhatG, and now this?

Chrome is making the same mistakes as IE 6. If WhatG standardizes in HTML 5 the web-kit way, and W3C announces HTML 5 and HTML 5.1 which have different arguments for the CSS then what? ... of course being slashdot they will blame IE for being incompatible and same with Firefox.

Re:Got My Hopes Up (1)

crywalt (2426042) | about 2 years ago | (#41591491)

I would hope -- xkcd cartoons aside -- that a truly good rebuilding of the Web from the ground up -- what CSS should have been, had it been done right -- would be attractive enough to enough people that it would eventually take over. I mean, that's why the Web took off in the first place. I realize this is unlikely.

what, no Oracle/Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41590971)

    RTFA, checked the web page, Oracle not on board?
    Yea

Facebook admits it (1)

foma84 (2079302) | about 2 years ago | (#41591047)

"Facebook - A community-driven documentation center [...]"
(as seen on the Stewards [webplatform.org] page)

Where's Mozilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591351)

Where's Mozilla in all of this? Seems like they should be involved somehow.

Re:Where's Mozilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591375)

Oh, wait, they're there: http://www.webplatform.org/stewards/

I love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591411)

These companies get together to create a site espousing web standards and best practices. This website's html/css don't validate as standard's compliant.

JavaScript and PHP documentation is missing (1)

Goodyob (2445598) | about 2 years ago | (#41591487)

...on a site about web development Truly this is a parody of a documentation website, if anything

Looks like a really bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41591517)

Microsoft should be forbidden by law from having anything to do with standards, because they just can't resist screwing with them.

define "standard" (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 2 years ago | (#41591731)

"Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft ... a single source of all the latest information about HTML5, CSS3, WebGL, SVG and other Web standards."

or else i'll take this is as a definition of "irony"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>