Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Considering An HTML 5

Posted by Zonk on from the party-like-its-1999 dept.

An anonymous reader writes "When the decision was initially made to move in the direction of XHTML, instead of a new version of HTML proper, it seemed like a good idea. Years later and the widespread adoption of CSS (among other things) has proven that things don't always develop the way we expect. As a result, HTML 5 has been revived by the W3C. After some lobbying and continued work by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group, the old web markup language is getting an official face-lift. A post to the Webforefront blog explains the history behind the initial decision to move to XHTML, and why things are so different in the here and now."

3 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The Author is Not Completely Wrong by tolan-b · · Score: 5, Informative

    HTML 5 is also 'XHTML 5'. You can use well-formed XHTML style syntax, and deliver it with an application/xml or application/xhtml+xml mimetype, *or* you can format it HTML style and deliver it with a standard HTML mimetype.

    http://blog.whatwg.org/html-vs-xhtml

  2. Re:Absolutely right by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who modded this informative? Suv4x4 is incorrect. The W3C came up with their HTML5 standard by taking a dump of the WHATWG HTML5 standard and putting the W3C colors on it. Which isn't surprising as most of the WHATWG members are also W3C members. It was always their intention to make their standard more "legitimate" by submitting it to the W3C once it was ready.

    Don't believe me? Here are the two standards. Compare:

    WHATWG HTML5
    W3C HTML5

    Save for some slight divergences as the WHATWG's standard is updated, they're exactly the same.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  3. Re:Absolutely right by jalefkowit · · Score: 5, Informative

    You jest, but it is actually that simple. HTML 5.0 = HTML 4 with some new sugar + XHTML parser strictness.

    The result is that browsers will show you the finger if you don't code to the standard.

    I'm a participant in the HTML Working Group and I can tell you that this is incorrect. You're thinking of XHTML2, not HTML 5. XHTML2 has the XML parser strictness and pages will fail to display if they're not well-formed. HTML 5 is going the complete opposite direction, assuming that people will code poorly and defining failure modes for browser vendors to follow when that happens.

    --

    Read my blog.