4 ms·

I have been thinking of the "HTML5" buzzword and its problems for a while now.

by yuhong 10y ago

moron4hire 10y ago
Care to elaborate? What specifically is wrong with HTML5? And how is it particularly worse than other offerings?
- yuhong 10y ago
  I am talking about the buzzword. For example, <canvas> dates back to 2005, long before the term was commonly used in the first place.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    Ah, I see, clinging to inconsequential garbage.
  - verandaguy 10y ago
    I don't really follow; your example's not clear. HTML5 is a standard, regardless of when the <canvas> element was first standardized, or even implemented. It's much less a buzzword than it is a set of specs which let HTML documents convey more semantic information, which in turns has implications for e.g. accessibility, among others.
- lucideer 10y ago
  I don't think this is what yuhong was referring to, but there's a lot wrong with HTML5. Googling "w3c whatwg", as one commenter suggested, won't give you any real insight into the mess, but it will hint at it. TL;DR The above document is irrelevant and should be ignored. Popular browsers' implementations define the HTML5 that most devs will want to target, and those browser vendors are members of the competing WHATWG body. They will largely ignore the W3C copy.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    More precisely, the "versions" are entirely arbitrary and even "versioning" HTML for the purpose of buzzwords is a misnomer. You will notice that WHATWG don't version their standards.
  - LukeShu 10y ago
    Those browser vendors are also members of W3C. That's not why W3C HTML5 is irrelevant. WHATWG HTML (formerly HTML5) is "rolling release"; the only version numbers are the "Last Modified" date at the top of the document. Meanwhile, W3C HTML5 has defined releases that are thoroughly scrutinized, reviewed, and debated in endless committee meetings. One of these models is good for rapid-release and fast iteration. The other isn't. Finally, W3C members are large companies, not individuals (with a few notable exceptions, like Aaron Swartz). WHATWG members are mostly individuals, many of whom are ordinary web developers who don't work on browser implementations. This difference is largely the raison d'être of WHATWG; it was the perception of many that W3C standards were diverging from what actual web developers wanted.
    - domenicd 10y ago
      Hi there, one of the WHATWG HTML editors here. > Meanwhile, W3C HTML5 has defined releases that are thoroughly scrutinized, reviewed, and debated in endless committee meetings. While this was true in the past, these days it's not really the case. They mostly just copy and paste our work without scrutinizing it, and usually without understanding it (as can be seen by the bugs they introduce during the copy-and-paste process). There aren't really any technical deliberations or committee meetings, and they don't follow a well-defined process; the most recent fork (from which HTML 5.1 is based) was actually done without the knowledge of the membership, and broke several aspects of W3C process while doing so. Why do they do this? Well, it seems to be largely an issue of institutional face-saving. See e.g. https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/14#issuecomment-108606731 https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/14#issuecomment-1...: "When the HTML WG co-chairs and Team presented our proposed After HTML5 plan to the W3C Advisory Board earlier this year, we received a clear message that it was not appropriate to delegate or assign the maintenance of a W3C Recommendation outside the organization." In other words, since they started copying and pasting back in the day with HTML 5.0, they can't stop now. Meanwhile there's actually a lot of interesting deliberation between web developers and browser vendors over in the WHATWG HTML Standard's bug tracker. https://github.com/whatwg/html/pulse https://github.com/whatwg/html/pulse might give a reasonable overview. Compare to https://github.com/w3c/html/pulse https://github.com/w3c/html/pulse. Some relevant corroborating links: - https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 when this all started - https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking monitoring the ongoing copy-and-paste-induced confusion - https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/364 https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/364 wherein they monitor our tree for things to copy and paste over - https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/19fcaf241f4417b2078bc26bf957b196e1d76154 https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/19fcaf241f4417b2078bc26bf... example commit of them copying and pasting our work en masse (Spot the bugs introduced! It's a fun game!)
nbb 10y ago
I have been thinking about where to go to lunch.

I have been thinking of the "HTML5" buzzword and its problems for a while now.

by yuhong 10y ago

I have been thinking of the "HTML5" buzzword and its problems for a while now.

moron4hire 10y ago

Care to elaborate? What specifically is wrong with HTML5? And how is it particularly worse than other offerings?

yuhong 10y ago
I am talking about the buzzword. For example, <canvas> dates back to 2005, long before the term was commonly used in the first place.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  Ah, I see, clinging to inconsequential garbage.
- verandaguy 10y ago
  I don't really follow; your example's not clear. HTML5 is a standard, regardless of when the <canvas> element was first standardized, or even implemented. It's much less a buzzword than it is a set of specs which let HTML documents convey more semantic information, which in turns has implications for e.g. accessibility, among others.
lucideer 10y ago
I don't think this is what yuhong was referring to, but there's a lot wrong with HTML5. Googling "w3c whatwg", as one commenter suggested, won't give you any real insight into the mess, but it will hint at it. TL;DR The above document is irrelevant and should be ignored. Popular browsers' implementations define the HTML5 that most devs will want to target, and those browser vendors are members of the competing WHATWG body. They will largely ignore the W3C copy.
- yuhong 10y ago
  More precisely, the "versions" are entirely arbitrary and even "versioning" HTML for the purpose of buzzwords is a misnomer. You will notice that WHATWG don't version their standards.
- LukeShu 10y ago
  Those browser vendors are also members of W3C. That's not why W3C HTML5 is irrelevant. WHATWG HTML (formerly HTML5) is "rolling release"; the only version numbers are the "Last Modified" date at the top of the document. Meanwhile, W3C HTML5 has defined releases that are thoroughly scrutinized, reviewed, and debated in endless committee meetings. One of these models is good for rapid-release and fast iteration. The other isn't. Finally, W3C members are large companies, not individuals (with a few notable exceptions, like Aaron Swartz). WHATWG members are mostly individuals, many of whom are ordinary web developers who don't work on browser implementations. This difference is largely the raison d'être of WHATWG; it was the perception of many that W3C standards were diverging from what actual web developers wanted.
  - domenicd 10y ago
    Hi there, one of the WHATWG HTML editors here. > Meanwhile, W3C HTML5 has defined releases that are thoroughly scrutinized, reviewed, and debated in endless committee meetings. While this was true in the past, these days it's not really the case. They mostly just copy and paste our work without scrutinizing it, and usually without understanding it (as can be seen by the bugs they introduce during the copy-and-paste process). There aren't really any technical deliberations or committee meetings, and they don't follow a well-defined process; the most recent fork (from which HTML 5.1 is based) was actually done without the knowledge of the membership, and broke several aspects of W3C process while doing so. Why do they do this? Well, it seems to be largely an issue of institutional face-saving. See e.g. https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/14#issuecomment-108606731 https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/14#issuecomment-1...: "When the HTML WG co-chairs and Team presented our proposed After HTML5 plan to the W3C Advisory Board earlier this year, we received a clear message that it was not appropriate to delegate or assign the maintenance of a W3C Recommendation outside the organization." In other words, since they started copying and pasting back in the day with HTML 5.0, they can't stop now. Meanwhile there's actually a lot of interesting deliberation between web developers and browser vendors over in the WHATWG HTML Standard's bug tracker. https://github.com/whatwg/html/pulse https://github.com/whatwg/html/pulse might give a reasonable overview. Compare to https://github.com/w3c/html/pulse https://github.com/w3c/html/pulse. Some relevant corroborating links: - https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 when this all started - https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking monitoring the ongoing copy-and-paste-induced confusion - https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/364 https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/364 wherein they monitor our tree for things to copy and paste over - https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/19fcaf241f4417b2078bc26bf957b196e1d76154 https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/19fcaf241f4417b2078bc26bf... example commit of them copying and pasting our work en masse (Spot the bugs introduced! It's a fun game!)

nbb 10y ago

I have been thinking about where to go to lunch.