So, wondering about the HTML 5 standard and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)? Has the W3C since fallen out of favor compared to direct cooperation between Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla on web standards? Not so. Here’s what happened? For a short period of time, HTML 5 development shifted away from the W3C and toward the Web Hypertext Applications Technology Working Group (WHATWG), but then another shift occurred. The W3C resumed involvement, but under a different initiative than was used by WHATWG: the W3C focused on taking the newer features, and “drawing a line in the sand” to set a specific version of the HTML 5 standard, HTML 5.0. Whereas, in the case of WHATWG, they wanted to continue to evolve a “Living Standard,” without declaring official standard versions. As conditions appear, it seems that WHATWG has since fallen out of favor for the use of “living standards,” where the standard evolves progressively, in favor of more direct cooperation between the leading browser vendors. However, for solidly built and clearly defined standards, the W3C is still the champion in this respect.
What had to change? One very important thing: given the increased complexity and precision of the newer standards, it is no longer possible for the W3C to produce standards documents that are also very well readable by average developers seeking to use the technology. Rather, such developers are now encouraged to look elsewhere for gentler introductions or programmer-oriented reference manuals. The specification, as it stands, is where you go to get very precise details about the correct behavior of specific features and functions conforming to a particular implementation version of HTML 5. Thus, the standards documents are going to be too detailed and not brief enough to serve as a useful reference manual for programmers wishing to learn about specific features and functions at a glance.
That being said, that is really something true to take to heart, the old W3C versus the new W3C. In the new world, one great reference of choice is Mozilla Developer Network (MDN). Microsoft Software Developers Network (MSDN) was once useful for learning HTML and JavaScript but has long since fallen out of favor. (It was always much harder to use for learning CSS, though still doable.) There are also similar references from Google, and maybe Apple, but somehow I find those to be less readable than MDN.
20180729/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG
20180729/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/htmlcss
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/html
20180729/https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-html52-20171214/
20180729/https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-html52-20171214/introduction.html#background
The W3’s site structure hasn’t changed very much in years. In some ways, it looks dated. In other ways, it looks like a logical continuum of features developed for earlier forms of modern devices. The web of devices section is particularly illustrative in this regard.
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/webofdevices/
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/mobilweb
20180729/http://www.w3.org/standards/webofdevices/tv