Only WHATWG have dropped the ‘5’ - for those who like their versioning and like their HTML to be W3C recommendation, W3C will still be calling this particular snapshot ‘HTML5’ (they have a logo and everything)
But really, it changes nothing. WHATWG have always considered HTML to be living. The working group will work on improving HTML until W3C are happy enough to publish it as a snapshot - and then they’ll work on it some more, and a bit down the line HTML6 will be published
It shouldn’t breed “best viewed in…” messages (and neither should CSS3) as long as you use progressive enhancement, which is just good practice anyway
Well I for one, like having a new name for things. I like shiny, I like new, I like html5. Dumb reason I know.
There are good arguments either way. Considering the way HTML evolves slowly over multiple streams simultaneously, it sort of doesn’t make sense to give it a version number in the same way a product can be versioned.
It does seem to me to keep us all in the same ballpark though, and it gives us a convenient way to talk about things and communicate where we are and what’s possible.
I see it quite the other way - XHTML2 was the best thing for the progression of the language and web standards overall, and it’s HTML5 (Fred) that is the total joke. And I know I’m not alone in that view. Just sayin’.
XHTML 2 already had all of the extedibility that they are now talking about with HTML5 (Fred).
Also XHTML2 is a logical progression from XHTML 1.0 and with IE9 now supporting XHTML there will soon (within 10 years) be no reason for professionals to not use XHTML leaving HTML for those who are at the ameteur end of the spectrum who probably don’t care about standards anyway.
Perhaps it would be more useful for someone to develop a standard for the extra tags in the proposal that actually make sense to have that can be used as an extension to XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1. That would be able to be implemented as a proper standard at least as quickly as the new HTML and would at least still be relevant when it was finished.
Heh heh, like Tommy Olsson? I was weaned on XHTML, so the stricter rules are in my blood, but I prefer HTML anyhow, as it seems cleaner to me … at least as long as we have to serve up sites as text/html (I hate all that /> stuff, not to mention that yucky CDATA stuff too). I don’t see why those using 4.01 are assumed to be amateurs.
My comment was with regard to the time in the future once IE8 is dead and XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 actually work as they were intended served as XHTML and we get all of the real benefits it is meant to provide (and you can code <img/> or <img></img> and they both work the same).
I wasn’t trying to suggest people using HTML 4.01 now are ameteurs since that is still the latest standard that works (unless you ignore IE8- which isn’t practical with the current market share).
The reason Tommy choose HTML 4.01 for several production sites was to do with not being able to guarantee well-formedness. For example draconian halting on errors; not because he dislikes XHTML because he does love XHTML. He HATES the majority of HTML5! (Fred).
Nor will there be any good reason for the most web designers to use XHTML instead of HTML. Even when browsers that support XHTML are widespread, for the majority of people who won’t be using the extended features that require XML, there will still be no advantage to using it. Labelling people who prefer the logical and more elegant markup format of HTML as amateurs who don’t care about standards is neither helpful nor fair.
I write HTML using XHTML syntax, and I care about standards. What does that make me?
Can anyone tell me how XHTML is better, because I’m getting confused here. I always thought HTML was better because it was less strict and less likely to simply not work when a XHTML compliant browser reads a site that uses a bad wysiwyg editor…
So if the extendability option of XHTML is no something that many people will use then why is HTML5 (by whatever name) being reorganised in order to provide that exact same feature. The whole point in their renaming HTML5 to HTML is so as to add extendibility into HTML - which is what XHTML already has.
WHY ARE THEY REINVENTING THE WHEEL if hardly anyone is going to use wheels? Surely the fact that they have opted to restructure HTML that way indicates that the extendibility that XHTML already provides (and which will be usable through XHTML long before it is through HTML) is a wanted feature. That being the case then surely people will switch to using XHTML in order to gain that extra functionality rather than waiting the extra years for it to be added into HTML.
So the new HTML will be identically equivalent to HTML 4.01 then with no additional tags or attributes. Seems a complete waste of time to be doing anything about HTML standards in that case.
If the new HTML is not going to be identical to HTML 4.01 then either a new version will be released as a unit that adds extra features and that ought to be called HTML5 OR the new version will introduce new features as modules which as far as most people are concerned is no different from extending XHTML.
I see… So when a dispute rises, you can always say: “it’s draft” or “it will be changed soon”.
This whole story is about a stupid thought: putting versions on smt may stop it’s evolution.
It’s the other way around. Putting version on smt is what makes it change often.
With html there were big player(s) that made it impossible to be true. And now, when those players seem to get up to speed, a moronic initiative: let’s put it in full stop.
Because, if you pay attention, they are saying that once a section matures, it will stop its further development, unless for security reason.
A utopia, really. And this initiative is really destined to fail. Because it’s moronic. Not only because it produces a childish spec, but because it uses amateur means to achieve its goals.
So what other alternative is there for releasing something other than all at once or piece at a time (other than not releasing it at all which you also said isn’t the case)?
I am interested in hearing just what other alternative is possible given that these alternatives appear to me to already cover everything that is possible.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – it’s little more than further proof of the idiocy that is WhatWG – First they strip versioning from the document with their dumbass lip-service doctype (because god forbid you actually say what revision of the rules you are following), then sleaze together every half-assed tag you shouldn’t be using in the first place into a giant mess that makes HTML 4 tranny look good, undo all the progress of STRICT by bloating out the specification with tags REDUNDANT to existing ones (because when people can’t be bothered to use the existing tags properly, adding more is going to make it SO much better)…
Now they go and strip versioning from it COMPLETELY?
Of course, to me that ANYONE is DUMB ENOUGH to think that HTML 5 is somehow any better than XHTML 1.0 STRICT or HTML 4 STRICT is outright mind blowing… We’re talking kool aid stronger than the stuff at Jonestown – makes one wonder if Steve Jobs is somehow involved given the level of reality distortion field involved.
Newer isn’t always better – and so far as HTML 5 goes, it’s “slap it together any old way” attitude is NOT an improvement – it seems entirely crafted to pacify the people who still sleaze out HTML 3.2, slap a HTML 4 tranny doctype on it and then call it ‘modern’.
Which is just part of why I see NO LEGITIMATE REASON to migrate past XHTML 1.0 STRICT at this point in time.
Of course you know something is bull when people start running their mouths with terms like it being a “living document”. Great, who put the history major who dropped out in his second year in charge?
Snake oil doctors never went away, they’re just better at hiding their colors. What is this? looks like piss… smells like piss… this is piss… piss with ink…
Ladies seem to love it… So do flies
I’ve seen this several times, and on one level it’s funny. However, on another level it misses the real train wreck in progress here. It’s not about what we are going to call the spec. It’s about the idea that WHATWG no longer believes they should be held to any particular spec at all. Releasing a “spec” as a living document means that you never intend to release a spec again. A spec is by definition a fixed point that everyone can use as a point of common understanding, and hopefully (though only slowly in web dev) as a common point that everyone can work towards. If the “spec” is now something that changes every other day, it is not a fixed point and we don’t even have a common point of reference to discuss what browser manufacturer’s are or aren’t including in their programs.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. If you no longer are expected to create the next version number, you can’t be held accountable when you make no improvements to the spec. IT’S UNVERSIONED! IT’S LIVING! So what difference does it make if you actually haven’t changed anything except the copyright date in 4 years.
Here’s my real problem…
The W3C has overly bureaucratic processes. The W3C has been pushed around and not stood its ground on some important issues. Browser vendors have ignored important standards the W3C has implemented correctly, because they decided not to do so (in one case, not updating their browser for almost half a decade). I think we would all agree that these are serious issues that the W3C faces and which we as an industry need to improve. So what do they do?
Drop Version Numbers???
When the &^%$%&^*% did a version number ever slow the W3C? They have serious problems with their procedures and ability to advance the standard; so the solution is to keep the problems and procedures but just drop the version numbers which make it obvious how slow they are going?
You are so right, noonnope, this isn’t to “improve” anything. This is just to mask how badly things are going for the W3C so they don’t have to keep making excuses for why they aren’t making any progress.
The name change has not affected how disputes are handled at all.
I don’t follow here.
It won’t stop further development. However, once a feature is shipped in implementations and used by Web content, the spec cannot be changed in backwards-incompatible ways (because the implementors would never agree to break compat unless for security reasons).