W3C Considering An HTML 5

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."

Comments

Absolutely right

[jimicus]

Because what the world really needs right now is another version of a web standard which has had hardly any full, correct implementations in any version that's ever existed.

Or are the W3C just trying to justify their existence?

Re:Absolutely right

[tolan-b]

Actually HTML5 is largely a result of work by the main browser makers, except Microsoft I believe. Hixie from Opera is the project lead of the WhatWG which was created to extend HTML to make it more applicable for web applications. It fixes a lot of the problems with both HTML 4 and XHTML, and its backwards compatible with *both*.

Re:Absolutely right

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Because this time people will code to it, dammit.

You got coffee on my monitor.

Re:Absolutely right

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Absolutely right

[WED Fan]

Actually HTML5 is largely a result of work by the main browser makers, except Microsoft I believe. Hixie from Opera is the project lead of the WhatWG which was created to extend HTML to make it more applicable for web applications. It fixes a lot of the problems with both HTML 4 and XHTML, and its backwards compatible with *both*.

Excuse me, but it must be pointed out.

When you start talking standards and you gather a group of browser/client makers to discuss new standards, you really do need to have the giant on the block represented. Otherwise, you get a set of standards that run the real possibility of being ignored, or worse, supplanted by the giant's idea.

When the combined numbers of the "others" don't even come close to trumping the giant's numbers, you are heading to failure. In this case MS, like it or not, is the giant. The easiest way to stop this crazy, "IE only partially implements html x.0/css x.1/xhtml x.x" crap is to involve them.

Of course, this is just crazy talk, right. Oh heavens, we might actually run into the problem of MS taking over the standard. You know what, when you have a formation marching down the street, and 70% are on one heel beat, and the other 30% are out of step with the 70% and aren't even in step with themselves, its the 30% that need to get with the beat.

Failure to accept this is only going to widen the gulf, unless MS, through largesse or coincidence follows the new standard.

Re:Absolutely right

[jalefkowit]

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.

Re:Absolutely right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm very troubled by the implication that HTML5 will focus on the assumption that people will code poorly and the proper solution is to provide better failure modes for browsers. This is more likely to have the effect of lowering the standard than improving it as humans will simply take the easy road.

I would plead for a higher standard that would require strict compliance to well-formed rules that would lead to better overall web governance, security, and standards that benefit the authors and readers. I'm really fed up with not being able to use my favorite browser for everything because the code is broken on one browser brand or version, or because one browser vendor simply wants to make their own rules.

Let's do this generation of standards right. Make the coders comply with strict, well-formed rules or make them pay the price.

Re:Absolutely right

[Allador]

Did you read the proposal, or anything around WHAT-WG's HTML5?

It's actually incredibly sensible, and is a very practical and natural extension of what we're doing with HTML now.

It has very little to do with browser bugs, or even web sites per-se. It's more about adding features to more naturally support web 'apps'.

Read up on it, it actually makes a lot of sense.

I just hope it can make some progress, but given that it was started by Mozilla, Apple and Opera, the people making the best browsers out there, it may actually have a chance of being supported.

Re:The Author is Not Completely Wrong

[tolan-b]

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