5 ms·

Please use http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ instead, as it’s based on the WHATWG HTML Living Standard rat

by mathias 12y ago

Please use http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ instead, as it’s based on the WHATWG HTML Living Standard rather than W3C’s versioned fork.

Mithaldu 12y ago
Two things about that: 1. What are the differences? I've no idea what the significance of the source is. 2. The one you linked is hella unreadable. OP's table is, due to the color differences, extremely easy to skim, while the one you linked has only very similar black&white x and checkmark symbols, which require closer inspection to differentiate.
- Tomte 12y ago
  The "main" development site for HTML5 is the WHATWG. That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. The WHATWG doesn't bother with versions, there will be no HTML6, for example. They just continually update the HTML5 spec. It's a living spec. The W3C kind of tracks the WHATWG progress and tags certain points with version numbers (that's where the "5.1" comes from). Although they do some development on their own, and sometimes both sides disagree and the specs diverge. At some point WHATWG removed an element that W3C retained or the other way around. I have no idea if they still diverge. I just discard the W3C when it comes to HTML5 and follow WHATWG. Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-)
  - currysausage 12y ago
    > Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-) Yeah, I don't quite know when such a table is very useful anyway. What I check is: (A) http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-index.html#elements-1 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... (B) http://caniuse.com/ http://caniuse.com/
    - couchand 12y ago
      I love http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com but I wish they had more detail. For instance, on the XHR page, I'd like to know which browsers support addEventHandler syntax and which ones require the use of onreadystatechange.
  - camo 12y ago
    > That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. With the notable exception of Microsoft.
meowface 12y ago
Is anyone out there actually using XHTML 2.0 currently?
Siecje 12y ago
I actually found it interesting to see what was in HTML5.1 and not in HTML5, even though I agree the 5.1 version number is quite silly.
- SteveFaulkner 12y ago
  Note, the reason why there some features in 5.1 that are not in 5.0 is that there are some features not implemented yet, 5.0 only includes implemented features.
goblin89 12y ago
The page you linked to doesn't look very trustworthy because it displays third-party ads. (Just an observation.)

by mathias 12y ago

Please use http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ instead, as it’s based on the WHATWG HTML Living Standard rather than W3C’s versioned fork.

Mithaldu 12y ago

Two things about that: 1. What are the differences? I've no idea what the significance of the source is. 2. The one you linked is hella unreadable. OP's table is, due to the color differences, extremely easy to skim, while the one you linked has only very similar black&white x and checkmark symbols, which require closer inspection to differentiate.

Tomte 12y ago
The "main" development site for HTML5 is the WHATWG. That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. The WHATWG doesn't bother with versions, there will be no HTML6, for example. They just continually update the HTML5 spec. It's a living spec. The W3C kind of tracks the WHATWG progress and tags certain points with version numbers (that's where the "5.1" comes from). Although they do some development on their own, and sometimes both sides disagree and the specs diverge. At some point WHATWG removed an element that W3C retained or the other way around. I have no idea if they still diverge. I just discard the W3C when it comes to HTML5 and follow WHATWG. Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-)
- currysausage 12y ago
  > Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-) Yeah, I don't quite know when such a table is very useful anyway. What I check is: (A) http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-index.html#elements-1 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... (B) http://caniuse.com/ http://caniuse.com/
  - couchand 12y ago
    I love http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com but I wish they had more detail. For instance, on the XHR page, I'd like to know which browsers support addEventHandler syntax and which ones require the use of onreadystatechange.
- camo 12y ago
  > That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. With the notable exception of Microsoft.

meowface 12y ago

Is anyone out there actually using XHTML 2.0 currently?

Siecje 12y ago

I actually found it interesting to see what was in HTML5.1 and not in HTML5, even though I agree the 5.1 version number is quite silly.

SteveFaulkner 12y ago
Note, the reason why there some features in 5.1 that are not in 5.0 is that there are some features not implemented yet, 5.0 only includes implemented features.

goblin89 12y ago

The page you linked to doesn't look very trustworthy because it displays third-party ads. (Just an observation.)