4 ms·

Ok, I'll bite. Assuming you are right and HTML5 doesn't exist. What would be the actual bad outcomes of the following? - believing HTML5 exists - silently ch

by jraph 9mo ago

Ok, I'll bite. Assuming you are right and HTML5 doesn't exist. What would be the actual bad outcomes of the following? - believing HTML5 exists - silently choosing to understand what someone mentioning HTML5 obviously meant

assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.
- jraph 9mo ago
 Let's just say that I don't think the truths you are pushing are as absolute as you seem to think, and I think they are a reflect of how you view the world more than anything. And that by correcting people that mention HTML5, you will probably just annoy people without achieving anything worth it. That would be true even if you are absolutely correct. It's peak "well, actually", with the twist it might not even actually be. That's not the truth, just my opinion, and I appreciate that you might not agree. Note that OP didn't mention "The HTML5 Standard", they mentioned "HTML5".
 - assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
 I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen. For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand, despite my pointing to online documentation, is that placing closing slashes on some elements can cause harm and that no HTML standard tells you to put one there or has ever required it. Yet they argue with me anyway. Much like you argue with me about this. And that's when I stop.
 - OptionOfT 9mo ago
 Can you share some of the links you'd share? I'm someone who still lives in the XHTML world and pedantically close all of my elements. Seems like I need a knowledge refresher. (and by the way, I could Google this, or any other chatbots, but I want to hear from your experience).
 - assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
 https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Void-elements#trailing-slashes-in-void-element-start-tags-do-not-mark-the-start-tags-as-self-closing https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Vo... https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Void-elements#trailing-slashes-directly-preceded-by-unquoted-attribute-values https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Vo... https://www.matsimon.dev/blog/to-close-or-not-to-close https://www.matsimon.dev/blog/to-close-or-not-to-close https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/737 https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/737 There's more.
 - jraph 9mo ago
 Reasons for not putting the slash in HTML: - since the slash doesn't have any meaning in HTML, if you don't quote your attributes, you are at risk that your slash is attached to the value or your unquoted attribute: ← uh oh, class = "myclass/"! You can test this by visiting the following URL, and inspecting the content: data:text/html, Now guess what happens to the unquoted src attribute of the img tag followed by an unspaced stray slash… OTOH, you don't need to not quote the src attribute… - it can give a false sense of correctness, one can reasonably consider that the closing effect of the slash is pure illusion and even potentially confusing. For backward compatibility, a stray slash at the end of the start tag is ignored, not considered as an attribute that doesn't have a value, so there's argument to be made that it's still part of the syntax. You'll never have any issue if you always put a space before the slash (which most people who put the slashes do because of a silly bug in a browser that has not been relevant for a long time), or if you quote all your attributes. I don't understand why they haven't decided to make the HTML5 parser parse like but I guess it is what it is.
 - 9mo ago
- deleted 9mo ago
 [deleted]
- cxr 9mo ago
 Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard. It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists. That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their current work the "Living Standard" doesn't erase that fact, any more than the W3C's publication of the third edition of the PNG standard last summer means that earlier editions "don't exist".
 - assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
 Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.
 - deleted 9mo ago
 [deleted]
 - cxr 9mo ago
 This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand. > Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. No shit. It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" that you very well know exists and have referenced by name in this thread. If you want to make an argument for the non-existence of HTML6, then fine; you're making a sound, totally defensible argument that no such thing exists. (A strawman, because nobody here—besides you—actually mentioned HTML6, but a verifiably true fact nonetheless.) But it makes for totally asinine argument for the claim that "There is no HTML5" and that it "doesn't exist". You'll take the W3C's stamp of approval? Great, it's right there—available for review now just as it was an hour ago, or at any other time after October 2014. This is an incontrovertible fact. Feel free to actually engage with this or any of the other facts you have been confronted with, rather than setting unsatisfiable goals like asking for the "current edition" that is "titled HTML5".

by jraph 9mo ago

assimpleaspossi 9mo ago

I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.

jraph 9mo ago
Let's just say that I don't think the truths you are pushing are as absolute as you seem to think, and I think they are a reflect of how you view the world more than anything. And that by correcting people that mention HTML5, you will probably just annoy people without achieving anything worth it. That would be true even if you are absolutely correct. It's peak "well, actually", with the twist it might not even actually be. That's not the truth, just my opinion, and I appreciate that you might not agree. Note that OP didn't mention "The HTML5 Standard", they mentioned "HTML5".
- assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
 I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen. For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand, despite my pointing to online documentation, is that placing closing slashes on some elements can cause harm and that no HTML standard tells you to put one there or has ever required it. Yet they argue with me anyway. Much like you argue with me about this. And that's when I stop.
 - OptionOfT 9mo ago
 Can you share some of the links you'd share? I'm someone who still lives in the XHTML world and pedantically close all of my elements. Seems like I need a knowledge refresher. (and by the way, I could Google this, or any other chatbots, but I want to hear from your experience).
 - assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
 https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Void-elements#trailing-slashes-in-void-element-start-tags-do-not-mark-the-start-tags-as-self-closing https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Vo... https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Void-elements#trailing-slashes-directly-preceded-by-unquoted-attribute-values https://github.com/validator/validator/wiki/Markup-%C2%BB-Vo... https://www.matsimon.dev/blog/to-close-or-not-to-close https://www.matsimon.dev/blog/to-close-or-not-to-close https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/737 https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/737 There's more.
 - jraph 9mo ago
 Reasons for not putting the slash in HTML: - since the slash doesn't have any meaning in HTML, if you don't quote your attributes, you are at risk that your slash is attached to the value or your unquoted attribute: ← uh oh, class = "myclass/"! You can test this by visiting the following URL, and inspecting the content: data:text/html, Now guess what happens to the unquoted src attribute of the img tag followed by an unspaced stray slash… OTOH, you don't need to not quote the src attribute… - it can give a false sense of correctness, one can reasonably consider that the closing effect of the slash is pure illusion and even potentially confusing. For backward compatibility, a stray slash at the end of the start tag is ignored, not considered as an attribute that doesn't have a value, so there's argument to be made that it's still part of the syntax. You'll never have any issue if you always put a space before the slash (which most people who put the slashes do because of a silly bug in a browser that has not been relevant for a long time), or if you quote all your attributes. I don't understand why they haven't decided to make the HTML5 parser parse like but I guess it is what it is.
 - 9mo ago
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
cxr 9mo ago
Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard. It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists. That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their current work the "Living Standard" doesn't erase that fact, any more than the W3C's publication of the third edition of the PNG standard last summer means that earlier editions "don't exist".
- assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
  Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cxr 9mo ago
    This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand. > Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. No shit. It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" that you very well know exists and have referenced by name in this thread. If you want to make an argument for the non-existence of HTML6, then fine; you're making a sound, totally defensible argument that no such thing exists. (A strawman, because nobody here—besides you—actually mentioned HTML6, but a verifiably true fact nonetheless.) But it makes for totally asinine argument for the claim that "There is no HTML5" and that it "doesn't exist". You'll take the W3C's stamp of approval? Great, it's right there—available for review now just as it was an hour ago, or at any other time after October 2014. This is an incontrovertible fact. Feel free to actually engage with this or any of the other facts you have been confronted with, rather than setting unsatisfiable goals like asking for the "current edition" that is "titled HTML5".