5 ms·
HTML 5.1 is the gold standard
- bryanlarsen 10y agoNote that this is not the WHATWG standard that all browsers follow. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12848419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12848419
- Waterluvian 10y agoWhat is W3C doing here then? Or will what WHATWG standardizes will basically be what this is?
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoThe W3C standard shall be a plagiarised, outdated, incomplete copy of the current WHATWG standard forevermore.
- wrs 10y agoSee https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#history-2 https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#his... >In 2011, however, the groups came to the conclusion that they had different goals: the W3C wanted to publish a "finished" version of "HTML5", while the WHATWG wanted to continue working on a Living Standard for HTML, continuously maintaining the specification rather than freezing it in a state with known problems, and adding new features as needed to evolve the platform. >Since then, the WHATWG has been working on this specification (amongst others), and the W3C has been copying fixes made by the WHATWG into their fork of the document (which also has other changes).
- wolfgke 10y agoThis excerpt is a good summary of the smugness that I hate the WHATWG for.
- mwfunk 10y agoWhat in that excerpt conveys smugness to you?
- wolfgke 10y ago* the W3C wanted to publish a "finished" version of "HTML5" Putting "finsished" into quotes is a hint of sarcasm of the WHATWG side. * continuously maintaining the specification Fixing known bugs is also a kind of continuous maintaining of a standard (this is what the W3C and other standard bodies do). That the WHATWG writers put this into contrast of the approach of the W3C is smugness again. * rather than freezing it in a state with known problems Fixing bugs and publishing errata is common for standards. The wording implies that this is something the W3C does not do. * and adding new features as needed to evolve the platform Having a stable standard which one can refer to (say in project contracts or for tooling) is also an important feature. The WHATWG connives over this and only considers the things that they do as features. * Since then, the WHATWG has been working on this specification (amongst others), and the W3C has been copying fixes made by the WHATWG into their fork of the document A very smug way to say "WHATWG does all the work and W3C is a copycat". Though the facts might be true, there are more humble ways to express that. * (which also has other changes). OK, what the W3C does is not really important - we can skip over these changes as they are not important (only the WHATWG version is).
- gsnedders 10y agoRe: > Fixing known bugs is also a kind of continuous maintaining of a standard (this is what the W3C and other standard bodies do). And: > Fixing bugs and publishing errata is common for standards. The wording implies that this is something the W3C does not do. There are countless W3C specs that don't have errata kept up-to-date, and, hell, the 5.1 errata is just <https://github.com/w3c/html/issues> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues> (if they fix a bug in 5.2 drafts, will they keep the issue open so it continues to appear on that (paginated) list of issues or not? because both options seem terrible!). Similarly, the W3C almost never issues revised recommendations to incorporate errata, which means even for specs where there have been no errata for years you have to cross-reference two documents. Another example is CSS 2.1, which doesn't have errata published any more: they're just fixed in the editor's draft of 2.2, and left to linger in the 2.1 Recommendation and errata. For plenty of W3C specs the only "errata" is an editor's draft of the next revision.
- unethical_ban 10y agoVersioned != stale. A proper standards group could have a new HTML x.Y version come out every 6-12 months. Now, who knows what is valid HTML? I don't know where to go to know when or if a <date> or <number> or <em> or <marquee> tag is valid, or what browser supports it.
- dfabulich 10y agoThere was a good discussion of this on HN when HTML 5.1 was announced as a W3C Recommendation, 16 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12848419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12848419
- minxomat 10y agoPretty ironic to advocate a "gold standard" when their website looks like early-2000's MSDN.
- Kenji 10y agoI think you're mistaken. The site tries to be modern by including 'material design' elements. I'm not gonna lie, I think it's extremely ugly and cluttered, but functional.
- wolfgke 10y agoWhat is considered as good design depends a lot on the zeitgeist and culture. For example in Asia (e.g. China, but also Japan) there is a rather different taste what is considered as a well-designed website: https://econsultancy.com/blog/67466-why-do-chinese-websites-look-so-busy/ https://econsultancy.com/blog/67466-why-do-chinese-websites-... http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/why-is-chinese-web-design-so-bad http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/why-is-chinese-web-design-so-b... https://randomwire.com/why-japanese-web-design-is-so-different/ https://randomwire.com/why-japanese-web-design-is-so-differe...
- maxerickson 10y agoIs it ironic that the actual gold standard was abandoned decades ago?
- ricardobeat 10y agoI can't point out what but this post feels out of touch. What is the point he wants to make, considering the release was already announced a week ago? Also I remember working on a project using native drag & drop events back in 2012 with wide browser support, including IE.
- tannhaeuser 10y agoWhat's up with the W3C hate here around? As far as I can see all they're trying to do is to publish a snapshot of WHATWG's work, which WHATWG refuses to do. There are those of us who need to develop against a stable feature set. Browser developers aren't the only ones interested in HTML, it's one of the most used vocabulary/API of all times. Is it unreasonable to expect some results after more than 10 years of work. I think some WHATWG members make themselves a bad name by ridiculing W3C publicly; WHATWG do great work, why do they find it necessary to troll W3C? I have a feeling it is it because they think they "own" HTML or something. In that case, they should be reminded of the fact that neither WHATWG nor W3C are "standards bodies" vs. IETF and ISO/IEC, say.
- Touche 10y agoProbably because the W3C literally copy/pastes other's work and claims it for their own. Look at this blog post, which doesn't credit WHATWG at all for doing the actual work of speccing HTML.
- bootload 10y ago"Probably because the W3C literally copy/pastes other's work and claims it for their own. Look at this blog post, which doesn't credit WHATWG at all for doing the actual work of speccing HTML." Does WHATWG put a licence their work?
- Touche 10y agoI don't know or care, I didn't claim that W3C is breaking a license, just that they are taking other people's work and claiming it as their own. That you can't see the difference between these things is not anything I can help you with.
- bootload 10y ago"I didn't claim that W3C is breaking a license, just that they are taking other people's work and claiming it as their own." The only reason I ask? If there's a license you can force the W3C to display it. I can see what you're getting at, and if the W3C as an organisation is stupid enough to make claims on ideas from WHATWG they should be reminded and forced to acknowledge this through law. One way to do this is enforcement by license.
- z3t4 10y agoHTML is nice because you can come up with your own elements and attributes. I for example use the abstract element a lot. And there are unofficial elements and attributes that help screen readers.
- tannhaeuser 10y agoI, for one, find value in W3C's HTML 5.1 publication. I couldn't have justified the effort to do my analysis/review of HTML 5 at http://sgmljs.net/docs/html5.html http://sgmljs.net/docs/html5.html based on a volatile and ever-changing standard. Mind you, the analysis is purely from a markup/formal language, not webdev PoV. Edit: typos