4 ms·

The author isn't criticizing Apple for adopting standards too fast. I don't know why you got that impression. Instead, the author is arguing the following. The

The author isn't criticizing Apple for adopting standards too fast. I don't know why you got that impression. Instead, the author is arguing the following. The term "HTML5" is supposed to be a standard, but the term has become a dumping ground for various parties. They introduce non-standard (or, at least, not-yet-standard) extensions in their browsers and call it HTML5. It's like Microsoft calling in-browser DirectX transformations HTML5. I don't think a technology may actually be called HTML5 until it's standardized by WHATWG or by W3C, otherwise the term will become meaningless, and it looks like both Apple and Google are quickly on their way towards making that a reality. Once the term has come to mean "arbitrary cool browser-specific extensions" we are only one small step away from the age-old "embrace and extend" practice. Coincidentally, Safari's recent Webkit 3D CSS transformations support (used everywhere in their demos) is very similar to DirectX transformations. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but as far as I know Webkit 3D transformations aren't (yet?) standardized by WHATWG or W3C.

steveklabnik 16y ago
Yes, but these 'browser extensions' aren't extensions in the same sense that IE's were. -mox, -ms, and -webkit are vendor prefixes, and they're part of the process for a vendor to get something put into the standard. See this great comment from yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1403749 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1403749
- FooBarWidget 16y ago
  That is correct. But until they're actually put into the standard they shouldn't be labeled HTML5, unless you want the term HTML5 to become meaningless.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    They're draft standards, just like the rest of HTML5. It's not a standard yet either.
ellyagg 16y ago
No, his negativity wasn't nearly that focused. See the argument around his introduction of "fuck you". Aside from which, I'm partly making a meta comment on the discussion over this page. The last couple of posts concerning it have been catch-alls for poorly-argued, poorly-reasoned disdain. The html5 issue alone does not even remotely justify the negative response this page has gotten. That's a rationalization. Else, why have the dozens of articles posted here previously discussing htm5, with the same loose definition, not garnered the same emotional response? The thesis I argued against is simply the best triangulation of the multiple, weakly expressed arguments made to justify the negative reactions. And the claim that these "extensions" are the same as MS's from years past is, to put it mildly, nonsense. This has been pointed out elsewhere, so I won't rehash it. The aggressive refusal by some folks to not recognize this looks like bias to me.

steveklabnik 16y ago

Yes, but these 'browser extensions' aren't extensions in the same sense that IE's were. -mox, -ms, and -webkit are vendor prefixes, and they're part of the process for a vendor to get something put into the standard. See this great comment from yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1403749 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1403749

FooBarWidget 16y ago
That is correct. But until they're actually put into the standard they shouldn't be labeled HTML5, unless you want the term HTML5 to become meaningless.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  They're draft standards, just like the rest of HTML5. It's not a standard yet either.

ellyagg 16y ago

No, his negativity wasn't nearly that focused. See the argument around his introduction of "fuck you". Aside from which, I'm partly making a meta comment on the discussion over this page. The last couple of posts concerning it have been catch-alls for poorly-argued, poorly-reasoned disdain. The html5 issue alone does not even remotely justify the negative response this page has gotten. That's a rationalization. Else, why have the dozens of articles posted here previously discussing htm5, with the same loose definition, not garnered the same emotional response? The thesis I argued against is simply the best triangulation of the multiple, weakly expressed arguments made to justify the negative reactions. And the claim that these "extensions" are the same as MS's from years past is, to put it mildly, nonsense. This has been pointed out elsewhere, so I won't rehash it. The aggressive refusal by some folks to not recognize this looks like bias to me.