Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the when-our-powers-combine dept.

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."

35 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Uh huh... by undeadbill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Uh huh... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      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"?

    2. Re:Uh huh... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  2. w3schools by vlm · · Score: 2

    So its basically an alpha reimplementation of w3schools?

    http://www.w3schools.com/

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:w3schools by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean this?

      http://w3fools.com/

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  3. It's a trap, right? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  4. Re:huh by etash · · Score: 2

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

  5. Re:huh by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  6. actually, it's web 3.0 by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:actually, it's web 3.0 by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Will it come with a start button?

  7. Re:huh by BZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:huh by etash · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. Strange by De+Lemming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the bottom of the front page are 9 logos, Apple is not one of them. On the Stewards page 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 :-)

    1. Re:Strange by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  10. Re:huh by Desler · · Score: 2

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

  11. Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up!

      No one sees the danger to this. PCMag does see an anology to webkit and IE 6. 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.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
  12. Google, the poster child for beta by tepples · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. This is needed because ... by quietwalker · · Score: 2

    (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?

  14. Here's a free best practice for them by jb_nizet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by Hentes · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by crywalt · · Score: 2

      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.

  15. Do you know what alpha means? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Do you know what alpha means? by mrbester · · Score: 2

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

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  16. Re:This is needed because ... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    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."

  17. Re:This is needed because ... by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:huh by rs79 · · Score: 2

    What he said. Holy crap...

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  19. I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by elloGov · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 V https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.location

    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!

    1. Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by Bogtha · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by Tchaik · · Score: 2

      I seriously question the web expertise of anyone who snubs w3schools as a "terrible", "painful" resource for web development. However, there isn't a resource that is more user-friendly than w3schools on many of the web topics.

      I seriously question the web expertise of anyone who snubs w3schools snobs. I'll note that experts don't need user-friendly, they need accuracy, both as a reference level and as a guide for best practices. Check http://w3fools.com/ again...

  20. like this one by w3fools??? by elloGov · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:like this one by w3fools??? by ameen.ross · · Score: 2

      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.
      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

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
  21. Huh? by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have 100 documentation sites on client side web technologies. Hey, let's try to merge them all into one single authoritative site.

    We have 101 documentation sites on client side web technologies.

    1. Re:Huh? by xkr47 · · Score: 2

      https://xkcd.com/927/