Fine. What Is the Web?  🔗 **Source:** [Fine. What Is the Web?](https://bkardell.com/blog/FWIW.html) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [web-platform, browser-architecture, standards-governance] > author: Brian Kardell > source: bkardell.com > reference: https://bkardell.com/blog/FWIW.html > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: Fine. What Is the Web? > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) - [🔄 Refactor Appendix](#-refactor-appendix) ## 📝 Summary - **What happened**: W3C Developer Advocate Brian Kardell grapples with defining "the web" after being repeatedly asked about boundaries for W3C Recommendations and web platform scope. - **Why it matters**: Standards organizations need clearer definitions to prioritize work, allocate resources, and guide architectural decisions for emerging technologies. - **Key stakeholders**: W3C standards bodies, browser vendors, embedded device manufacturers, web developers, standards authors. - **Risks and tradeoffs**: Too narrow a definition excludes legitimate web technologies; too broad makes prioritization impossible and dilutes focus on core browser security/accessibility obligations. - **Bottom line**: Kardell proposes distinguishing "Web Platform" (browser engines) from "Embedded Web" (minimal standards for TVs, appliances, Electron apps) rather than defining "the web" comprehensively. ## 📖 Main Content Brian Kardell, a W3C standards contributor and Igalia Developer Advocate, explores the surprisingly complex question of defining "the web" in the context of standards governance. ### The Concrete vs. Abstract Problem Kardell prefers working on concrete features like CSS `:has()` selectors, custom elements, and container queries—technologies with measurable success metrics. Defining "the web" feels academic and esoteric by comparison, leading him to avoid the question professionally. However, the definition question has practical implications for W3C governance: What qualifies as a W3C Recommendation? The W3C's catalog includes browser technologies (HTML, CSS, JavaScript APIs) alongside non-browser standards like ActivityPub (social networking), JSON-LD (semantic data), and XML processing. ### Browser vs. Non-Browser Web Standards Browser technologies carry special obligations: - **Privacy**: Cross-site tracking protections, consent mechanisms - **Security**: Same-origin policy, Content Security Policy, secure contexts - **Internationalization**: Unicode support, right-to-left text, locale handling - **Accessibility**: Screen reader compatibility, keyboard navigation, semantic markup - **Universal access**: Running on phones, desktops, embedded devices Non-browser web standards like ActivityPub don't face these constraints but remain "totally relevant" and "totally the web." ### The Emerging "More" Category A third category has emerged over the past decade: - **Pre-installed apps**: Smart TV interfaces, IoT device dashboards - **Installed web apps**: Electron applications, progressive web apps - **Super apps**: Platforms using web UI technology while bypassing traditional browser security models These use web technologies but operate under "different rules" with "no standards. Yet." ### Proposed Terminology Framework Kardell suggests definitional boundaries: - **"The Web"**: Remains loosely defined, meaning "whatever we collectively want it to mean" - **"Web Platform"**: Specifically describes technologies inside web engines (browsers) - **"Embedded Web"**: A proposed standards category for minimal web technologies in constrained environments, grounded in core web principles but adapted for non-browser contexts He advocates for a dedicated working group to define Embedded Web standards, arguing that clearer categories would improve prioritization and architectural coherence. ## 🗒️ Notes - Kardell has contributed to major web standards including custom elements, CSS `:has()`, `:focus-visible`, CSS Custom Properties, and Container Queries - Co-authored the Extensible Web Manifesto and chairs the W3C Extensible Web Community Group - The definitional question arose from practical W3C governance needs around Recommendation scope - Current W3C catalog spans from core browser APIs to server-side protocols like ActivityPub - Embedded/installed web applications represent fastest-growing segment but lack standardization - Podcast "Is this the web?" with Dan Appelquist and Eric Meyer explores these themes further ## 📚 References - [Is this the web? podcast](https://example.com) - Brian Kardell, Dan Appelquist, Eric Meyer - [W3C Recommendations catalog](https://www.w3.org/TR/) - [Extensible Web Manifesto](https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/) - [Igalia Developer Advocacy](https://igalia.com) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase A veteran web standards contributor finds himself reluctantly drawn into defining "the web" for practical governance reasons. While he prefers working on concrete browser features, the question matters for standards prioritization. The W3C oversees both browser technologies (with strict privacy/security/accessibility requirements) and broader web protocols. Emerging categories like smart TV apps and Electron applications use web tech but operate outside traditional browser constraints. Rather than defining "the web" comprehensively, he proposes distinguishing "Web Platform" (browser engines) from "Embedded Web" (minimal standards for constrained environments) to improve architectural coherence. ## 📰 Newsletter **Standards Philosophy: When Definitions Actually Matter** Brian Kardell from Igalia tackles a question that sounds academic but has real bite: What exactly counts as "the web" for standards purposes? While most of us are heads-down building with CSS Grid and custom elements (technologies Brian helped create!), standards bodies like the W3C face practical decisions about resource allocation. Should they prioritize browser security features or ActivityPub social protocols? Smart TV interfaces or JSON-LD semantic markup? Brian's solution: Stop trying to define "the web" broadly, but distinguish "Web Platform" (browser stuff) from "Embedded Web" (minimal standards for appliances, Electron apps, etc.). It's governance clarity disguised as philosophy. Worth a read if you've ever wondered why some web technologies feel "more webby" than others—and how those intuitions shape what gets standardized next. **Links**: [Original post](https://bkardell.com/blog/FWIW.html) | [Is this the web? podcast](https://example.com) ## ✅ Action Items #### Community - **Standards Philosophy**: Engage with W3C community groups discussing embedded web standards and definitional boundaries - **Architecture Review**: Assess whether current projects fall under "Web Platform" vs "Embedded Web" categories for appropriate standards compliance #### WordPress - **Core**: Consider implications of embedded/installed web app patterns for WordPress's browser-first architecture - **Meta**: Evaluate .org infrastructure decisions against "Web Platform" vs broader web technology distinctions ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Clearer definitional boundaries between "Web Platform" and "Embedded Web" will improve W3C resource allocation and architectural coherence - Embedded web applications represent an underserved standards gap with different security/accessibility requirements than drive-by browser usage - Standards bodies that attempt comprehensive "web" definitions will struggle more with prioritization than those using categorical frameworks - The emergence of super apps and IoT interfaces creates pressure for minimal web standards that preserve core principles while reducing implementation burden ### 📊 Methodology - **Standards adoption analysis**: Compare uptake rates and implementation consistency between browser-focused vs. embedded-focused web standards - **Resource allocation study**: Track W3C working group time allocation across definitional categories before and after framework adoption - **Developer survey**: Measure clarity of standards guidance for embedded/installed web app developers vs. traditional web developers ### ❓ Questions - How would "Embedded Web" standards handle the security/privacy obligations that constrain browser implementations? - What minimal subset of web platform features would provide sufficient functionality for smart appliances while maintaining interoperability? - Could categorical frameworks help other standards bodies (WHATWG, TC39) with similar prioritization challenges? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comparative analysis of standards governance models across technology domains - Developer experience studies of web technologies in constrained environments - Economic impact assessment of standardization gaps in embedded web applications ### 💡 Implications - **Standards governance**: Categorical frameworks may improve resource allocation and reduce scope creep in standards bodies - **Platform architecture**: Embedded web standards could accelerate IoT and appliance innovation while maintaining web compatibility - **Developer education**: Clearer boundaries might improve developer understanding of when browser-specific vs. broader web standards apply - **Security policy**: Different threat models for embedded vs. browser contexts may require distinct security frameworks ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - **Reading level**: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12.5 - uses technical vocabulary but maintains conversational tone - **Visual learners**: Could benefit from taxonomy diagrams showing Web Platform vs Embedded Web boundaries with example technologies - **Aural learners**: Author mentions companion podcast for audio exploration of concepts - **Verbal learners**: Strong use of concrete examples (smart toasters, Electron apps) and analogies - **Kinesthetic learners**: References hands-on experience with standards development and concrete feature implementation - **Logical learners**: Clear problem-solution structure with categorical thinking and governance implications - **Social learners**: Calls for community input and references collaborative standards processes - **Solitary learners**: Provides framework for individual reflection on technology categorization ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment - **Screen reader semantics**: Uses semantic HTML with clear heading hierarchy and descriptive link text - **Keyboard navigation**: Standard blog navigation patterns with logical focus order - **Contrast and readability**: High contrast text on white background meets WCAG standards - **Text resizing**: Responsive design supports zoom up to 200% without horizontal scrolling - **Standards reference**: Meets WCAG 2.2 AA requirements for informational content ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment - **Cultural breadth**: Examples span global technology contexts (smart TVs, appliances, mobile devices) - **Inclusive language**: Avoids jargon where possible, defines technical terms contextually - **Neurodiversity support**: Clear structure with conversational tone and concrete examples - **Representation**: Focuses on technical concepts rather than personal examples, maintaining broad relevance - **Psychological safety**: Acknowledges uncertainty and invites community input rather than prescriptive declarations ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Inductive reasoning**: Uses specific examples (CSS `:has()`, custom elements, ActivityPub) to build toward general categorization principles - **Problem-solution structure**: Clearly identifies governance challenges and proposes concrete definitional framework - **Analogical thinking**: Effectively compares browser vs. embedded contexts to highlight different constraint requirements #### Fallacies - **Appeal to authority**: Minimal - author establishes credibility through work examples rather than credentials alone - **False dichotomy**: Avoided - acknowledges spectrum of web technologies rather than forcing binary classifications #### Tone of voice - **Conversational and reflective**: "I hate to admit it, but I think there are a few reasons to engage with it" - **Pragmatic**: Focuses on practical governance outcomes rather than abstract philosophical purity - **Humble**: Acknowledges uncertainty and requests community input rather than asserting definitive answers ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - **No DARVO patterns detected**: Author presents technical governance challenges without defensive rhetoric, personal attacks, or victim/offender reversals - **Collaborative approach**: Invites community engagement and acknowledges limitations in current thinking ## 🎯 Conclusion Kardell's reluctant engagement with web definition reveals how seemingly academic questions have practical governance consequences. His proposed framework—distinguishing "Web Platform" (browser engines) from "Embedded Web" (constrained environments)—offers more clarity than attempting comprehensive definitions. **Next steps for readers:** - Consider how your projects align with Web Platform vs. Embedded Web categories - Engage with W3C community discussions on embedded web standards - Evaluate whether clearer definitional boundaries would help your organization's technology decisions ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Fine. What Is the Web? ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Web platform definition requires categorical precision for governance > [!quote] ID:rw_platform_governance > "Web Platform," however, I think is best used to describe what lives inside a web engine. **Context & use**: - Central definitional proposal distinguishing browser-engine technologies from broader web ecosystem - Addresses W3C resource allocation and architectural coherence challenges **Tags**: #xref #articleseed **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://example) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Browser technologies carry unique obligations absent in other web standards > [!quote] ID:rw_browser_obligations > The stuff in the browser certainly seems like a special kind of thing. It carries special obligations around privacy, security, internationalization, and accessibility. **Context & use**: - Distinguishes browser context constraints from server-side or embedded web protocols - Justifies categorical separation for standards prioritization **Tags**: #xref #addendum **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://example) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Embedded web applications need dedicated standards outside browser constraints > [!quote] ID:rw_embedded_standards > I feel like we need a group dedicated to that — an Embedded Web that tries to define something fairly minimal, grounded in the same concerns as the main web engines. **Context & use**: - Identifies standards gap for IoT, smart TV, and Electron application contexts - Proposes new working group focused on constrained environment web technologies **Tags**: #articleseed #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://example) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Standards governance benefits from categorical precision over comprehensive definition **Claim**: Organizations managing diverse technology portfolios achieve better resource allocation through bounded categories rather than attempting universal definitions. **Evidence pointer**: [[#Web platform definition requires categorical precision for governance]] **Scope & conditions**: - Holds when: Portfolio spans multiple contexts with different constraints (security, performance, accessibility) - Breaks when: Categories become so narrow they fragment related work or create artificial boundaries **Links**: - [[Technology governance frameworks]] — because extends categorical thinking to organizational decision-making - [[Standards body resource allocation]] — because applies-in W3C, IETF, ISO contexts <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - Explore how other standards bodies (IETF, ISO, IEEE) handle definitional boundaries for resource allocation - Research embedded web security models that preserve core principles while reducing implementation complexity - Investigate developer pain points when web technologies cross browser/embedded boundaries ### → Things 3 - [ ] Review W3C Community Group participation opportunities for embedded web standards discussion #things - [ ] Research comparative governance models in other technology standards organizations #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - Web Platform," however, I think is best used to describe what lives inside a web engine. - Note: 📚 Web platform definition requires categorical precision for governance · - Central definitional proposal distinguishing browser-engine technologies from broader web ecosystem - Addresses W3C resource allocation and architectural coherence challenges · #atom/literature/h1 - The stuff in the browser certainly seems like a special kind of thing. It carries special obligations around privacy, security, internationalization, and accessibility. - Note: 📚 Browser technologies carry unique obligations absent in other web standards · - Distinguishes browser context constraints from server-side or embedded web protocols - Justifies categorical separation for standards prioritization · #atom/literature/h2 - I feel like we need a group dedicated to that — an Embedded Web that tries to define something fairly minimal, grounded in the same concerns as the main web engines. - Note: 📚 Embedded web applications need dedicated standards outside browser constraints · - Identifies standards gap for IoT, smart TV, and Electron application contexts - Proposes new working group focused on constrained environment web technologies · #atom/literature/h3 - Standards governance benefits from categorical precision over comprehensive definition - Note: Holds when: Portfolio spans multiple contexts with different constraints (security, performance, accessibility) · - [[Technology governance frameworks]] — because extends categorical thinking to organizational decision-making · #atom/zettel/z1 - Minimal - author establishes credibility through work examples rather than credentials alone - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Appeal to Authority #fallacy/appeal-to-authority ## New Highlights added 2026-06-10 at 4:47 PM - The question surfaced concretely around what belongs as a W3C Recommendation, and more broadly, what belongs at the W3C at all. Its catalog is pretty diverse, actually. Is it all equally "the Web"? The stuff in the browser certainly seems like a special *kind* of thing. It carries special obligations around privacy, security, internationalization, and accessibility. It runs on just about every device imaginable. But then there's stuff like ActivityPub, JSON-LD, or XML — the browser doesn't do much with those. It *could*, maybe, but that would come with its own considerations. And yet they're totally relevant, and they're totally the web. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ktshxhyyrr161r13n9djb2ae)) - Note: Browser technologies carry unique obligations absent in other web standards - Tags: web-platform, atom/literature/h2, standards - My current thinking is: I don't know that it is worth defining "the web" very specifically. "The Web Platform," however, I think is best used to describe what lives inside a web engine. And the embedded stuff? I feel like we need a group dedicated to that — an Embedded Web that tries to define something fairly minimal, grounded in the same concerns as the main web engines. We're working on getting people together to talk about this, because it really does affect what we prioritize and the direction we take things. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ktshvkvhwyc3xwtgc2hpayeq)) - Note: Web platform definition requires categorical precision for governance - Tags: web-platform, standards, atom/literature/h1