5 ms·

HTML is the new HTML5

93 points by earnubs 16y ago

daleharvey 16y ago
I think this is a really good step in the right direction, the specification process is now matching up with the way the standard are actually implemented. I think in the last few days the w3c + whatwg have taken really positive steps, both for the understanding of the technologies and the marketing of them.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > think in the last few days the w3c + whatwg have taken really positive steps w3c releasing an HTML 5 logo and the whatwg renaming HTML 5 to HTML doesn't sound that great.
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    Think of it as "English as Documented in OED2" versus "English as used on the street" Both definitions are actually useful in different contexts. The second one certainly allows for more flexibility in growth and development. whatwg is recognizing that HTML, like chrome, isn't as important in a particular ordinal identifier, as they are in the features they offer and the development model behind them. I'm guessing 95% of the people using chrome don't what version they are currently using - but it has never impacted web developers, or users, from making use of the browser. It also aligns with agile development practices, and, if I can stretch a bit, dvcsystems - people are free to complete new stories in the HTML definition or browser, without worrying too much about other teams work, or particular releases.
  - daleharvey 16y ago
    I think the more people understand these technologies and their terminologies, the more people will feel comfortable using them, the more people using them the faster their development will progress. I think these last 2 announcements have drastically helped clarify things. So as a web enthusiast I do find it great
macrael 16y ago
Is this a snipe at the W3C from the WHATWG? Is it a coincidence that the W3C announced the HTML5 logo yesterday, and today the WHATWG is dropping the 5? Why would that not have been coordinated? I feel like the W3C logo would make more sense as being HTML instead of HTML5
- annevk 16y ago
  I am a Member of the WHATWG and one of the persons that pushed for this change. We try not to snipe at the W3C. What happened was that HTML5 was used to mean a lot more than HTML5-the-spec in practice. The W3C embraced this and designed a logo around this concept. Now that the W3C was on board with calling e.g. CSS HTML5 we thought we could safely carry out a move we had wanted to make at the end of 2009. Namely dropping the 5 from HTML5 since HTML has no versions. It is a continuously evolving language.
teilo 16y ago
I'll have to reserve judgment on this. The idea makes me nervous. I guess my main fear is that the "living document" may cease to be a target that is continuously progressing forward, and instead may become merely a description of current practices. Who, then, is minding the store? HTML5 was a decided move away from the stagnation that had become xhtml, with a lot of new ideas. It created a cohesive goal, and moved toward that goal. Each major rev of the standard gives you an opportunity to re-assess and, if necessary, change your vector. Also, this begs the question: whither validation? What are we validating against now?
- daleharvey 16y ago
  the same people we have always been validating against, the users and the software they use
- annevk 16y ago
  The basic idea is that the software (browsers, validators, editors), the specification, and common practice, all evolve together. This is how the web has evolved so far. We are simply acknowledging it.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    In particular, it’s nice to remove the confusion around whether an HTML4 document was any different from an HTML5 document. Now it should be easier to explain that the interpretation of every web page anywhere can be described in one standard called “HTML”.
- Hixie 16y ago
  Well we could have stopped progressing without renaming the spec. You have to make sure we keep improving the Web, and if we don't, take over! That's what we did to the W3C when they stopped, after all. (You can also join us. See http://whatwg.org/ http://whatwg.org/ for details. It's basically an open community.)
  - foobarbazoo 16y ago
luigi 16y ago
This is a signal to the nitpickers to cut it out already. Now that the actual HTML5 spec is just called HTML, we're free to use the term HTML5 to describe the suite of new web standards.
qeorge 16y ago
Its like we're playing a game of Taboo[1] in which I have to describe this set of technologies and I can't say HTML5. Only its no fun. Sarcasm aside, if HTML = HTML5, how is one to describe this? "HTML5" wasn't perfect, but its a helluva lot better than "<canvas> and friends". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo_%28game%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo_%28game%29
- Hixie 16y ago
  What's wrong with just "HTML"? I'm not sure what you mean by "<canvas> and friends" or what you meant by "HTML5" before.
andrewcamel 16y ago
What about the new HTML5 logo? Didn't they release that just two days ago? Seems like a bit of a waste...
- rimantas 16y ago
  W3C did release the logo. WHATWG produces the specs, not logos.
ramonRecuero 16y ago
I agree with fleitz. The users do not care about standards and the developers should focus on the users and consequently just make it work in all browsers without caring about the theoretical specification. I just hope IE9 is released soon and finally implements round border...
- rimantas 16y ago
  You comment is wrong on many levels. Let's just start by saying that HTML spec (formerly known as HTML5) is a very practical work, more than any of the preceding specs. This was driven by the desire and the goal to "make it work in all browsers". I guess you don't remember the "if (document.layers)" days… While true that users don't care, spec is not for the users. It is for developers and browser vendors, and they care a lot. You may not care what's under the hood of your car as long as it drives you from the point A to the point B, but believe me, countless specs are involved.
benwerd 16y ago
For some reason the first thing that comes into my head is, "we have always been at war with Eastasia." Bizarre Orwellian statements aside, this is a terrible move unless you're sitting in a development bubble. I can totally get behind HTML being constantly developed. Of course it is. But you need to take snapshots to act as reference points for the rest of us. Some of us kind of want to support users who might not be on the latest and greatest platform. Do browsers have version numbers? Yes. HTML should too. (Ideally, browsers should also report what version of HTML they support on their About page. That'd be rad. But I don't think we're going to see it any time soon.)
- thristian 16y ago
  That was exactly the first thing that came into my head too. The trouble with declaring a particular revision of HTML as 'supported' is that a standard as complex as HTML (or ECMAScript, or CSS) has many parts, and it's quite possible to correctly and completely support some parts and not others. For example, HTML 4 defines that tables can have a <col> element with an "align" attribute that declares the visual alignment of cells in that column. HTML 4 became a recommendation in December 1999, and yet I know of no browser that supports the "align" attribute on <col> elements. Does that mean that every browser has to mark HTML 4 as 'not supported'?
- annevk 16y ago
  You are assuming browsers implement a particular version of HTML. They do not. I work for a browser vendor (Opera) and what actually happens is that we keep getting closer to interoperability with each release. I.e. add support for EventSource, fix several bugs in the HTML parser, etc. Software (and in particular the browser market) is not the same as a screwdriver. You do not bring it to market once and it is ready. It incrementally evolves over time and keeps getting better and better (when done right). To counter Orwellian developments we have version control: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker

93 points by earnubs 16y ago

I think this is a really good step in the right direction, the specification process is now matching up with the way the standard are actually implemented. I think in the last few days the w3c + whatwg have taken really positive steps, both for the understanding of the technologies and the marketing of them.

patrickaljord 16y ago
> think in the last few days the w3c + whatwg have taken really positive steps w3c releasing an HTML 5 logo and the whatwg renaming HTML 5 to HTML doesn't sound that great.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Think of it as "English as Documented in OED2" versus "English as used on the street" Both definitions are actually useful in different contexts. The second one certainly allows for more flexibility in growth and development. whatwg is recognizing that HTML, like chrome, isn't as important in a particular ordinal identifier, as they are in the features they offer and the development model behind them. I'm guessing 95% of the people using chrome don't what version they are currently using - but it has never impacted web developers, or users, from making use of the browser. It also aligns with agile development practices, and, if I can stretch a bit, dvcsystems - people are free to complete new stories in the HTML definition or browser, without worrying too much about other teams work, or particular releases.
- daleharvey 16y ago
  I think the more people understand these technologies and their terminologies, the more people will feel comfortable using them, the more people using them the faster their development will progress. I think these last 2 announcements have drastically helped clarify things. So as a web enthusiast I do find it great

macrael 16y ago

Is this a snipe at the W3C from the WHATWG? Is it a coincidence that the W3C announced the HTML5 logo yesterday, and today the WHATWG is dropping the 5? Why would that not have been coordinated? I feel like the W3C logo would make more sense as being HTML instead of HTML5

annevk 16y ago
I am a Member of the WHATWG and one of the persons that pushed for this change. We try not to snipe at the W3C. What happened was that HTML5 was used to mean a lot more than HTML5-the-spec in practice. The W3C embraced this and designed a logo around this concept. Now that the W3C was on board with calling e.g. CSS HTML5 we thought we could safely carry out a move we had wanted to make at the end of 2009. Namely dropping the 5 from HTML5 since HTML has no versions. It is a continuously evolving language.

teilo 16y ago

I'll have to reserve judgment on this. The idea makes me nervous. I guess my main fear is that the "living document" may cease to be a target that is continuously progressing forward, and instead may become merely a description of current practices. Who, then, is minding the store? HTML5 was a decided move away from the stagnation that had become xhtml, with a lot of new ideas. It created a cohesive goal, and moved toward that goal. Each major rev of the standard gives you an opportunity to re-assess and, if necessary, change your vector. Also, this begs the question: whither validation? What are we validating against now?

daleharvey 16y ago
the same people we have always been validating against, the users and the software they use
annevk 16y ago
The basic idea is that the software (browsers, validators, editors), the specification, and common practice, all evolve together. This is how the web has evolved so far. We are simply acknowledging it.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  In particular, it’s nice to remove the confusion around whether an HTML4 document was any different from an HTML5 document. Now it should be easier to explain that the interpretation of every web page anywhere can be described in one standard called “HTML”.
Hixie 16y ago
Well we could have stopped progressing without renaming the spec. You have to make sure we keep improving the Web, and if we don't, take over! That's what we did to the W3C when they stopped, after all. (You can also join us. See http://whatwg.org/ http://whatwg.org/ for details. It's basically an open community.)
- foobarbazoo 16y ago

luigi 16y ago

This is a signal to the nitpickers to cut it out already. Now that the actual HTML5 spec is just called HTML, we're free to use the term HTML5 to describe the suite of new web standards.

qeorge 16y ago

Its like we're playing a game of Taboo[1] in which I have to describe this set of technologies and I can't say HTML5. Only its no fun. Sarcasm aside, if HTML = HTML5, how is one to describe this? "HTML5" wasn't perfect, but its a helluva lot better than "<canvas> and friends". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo_%28game%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo_%28game%29

Hixie 16y ago
What's wrong with just "HTML"? I'm not sure what you mean by "<canvas> and friends" or what you meant by "HTML5" before.

andrewcamel 16y ago

What about the new HTML5 logo? Didn't they release that just two days ago? Seems like a bit of a waste...

rimantas 16y ago
W3C did release the logo. WHATWG produces the specs, not logos.

ramonRecuero 16y ago

I agree with fleitz. The users do not care about standards and the developers should focus on the users and consequently just make it work in all browsers without caring about the theoretical specification. I just hope IE9 is released soon and finally implements round border...

rimantas 16y ago
You comment is wrong on many levels. Let's just start by saying that HTML spec (formerly known as HTML5) is a very practical work, more than any of the preceding specs. This was driven by the desire and the goal to "make it work in all browsers". I guess you don't remember the "if (document.layers)" days… While true that users don't care, spec is not for the users. It is for developers and browser vendors, and they care a lot. You may not care what's under the hood of your car as long as it drives you from the point A to the point B, but believe me, countless specs are involved.

benwerd 16y ago

For some reason the first thing that comes into my head is, "we have always been at war with Eastasia." Bizarre Orwellian statements aside, this is a terrible move unless you're sitting in a development bubble. I can totally get behind HTML being constantly developed. Of course it is. But you need to take snapshots to act as reference points for the rest of us. Some of us kind of want to support users who might not be on the latest and greatest platform. Do browsers have version numbers? Yes. HTML should too. (Ideally, browsers should also report what version of HTML they support on their About page. That'd be rad. But I don't think we're going to see it any time soon.)

thristian 16y ago
That was exactly the first thing that came into my head too. The trouble with declaring a particular revision of HTML as 'supported' is that a standard as complex as HTML (or ECMAScript, or CSS) has many parts, and it's quite possible to correctly and completely support some parts and not others. For example, HTML 4 defines that tables can have a <col> element with an "align" attribute that declares the visual alignment of cells in that column. HTML 4 became a recommendation in December 1999, and yet I know of no browser that supports the "align" attribute on <col> elements. Does that mean that every browser has to mark HTML 4 as 'not supported'?
annevk 16y ago
You are assuming browsers implement a particular version of HTML. They do not. I work for a browser vendor (Opera) and what actually happens is that we keep getting closer to interoperability with each release. I.e. add support for EventSource, fix several bugs in the HTML parser, etc. Software (and in particular the browser market) is not the same as a screwdriver. You do not bring it to market once and it is ready. It incrementally evolves over time and keeps getting better and better (when done right). To counter Orwellian developments we have version control: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker