Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No More Version Numbers For HTML

Posted by timothy on from the now-they'll-have-threat-level-colors dept.

An anonymous reader writes "HTML5 will be the last version of HTML that carries a version number. Ian Hickson, a Google engineer and editor of the HTML5 standard, announced that the language will be transitioned to a 'living standard' without version numbers. A bit like Chrome, if you will."

13 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Not a Standard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you never finalize it's not a standard. This sounds like a Microsoft move to me.

  2. terrible idea by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'll get pages that becomes invalid with time despite they were valid before. That sounds like a very stupid idea.

    Until you name the revision by dates, which is basically the same thing as giving version numbers...

  3. Without versions... by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...I can always render the latest HTML in Netscape Navigator. Right?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  4. Um... by FatSean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People will still need to differentiate between implementations of HTML that have different features...do they expect us all to just use the latest and hope nothing breaks?!

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Um... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I look forward to the "this site is compliant with some of HTML standards and not others because they're too new. We can't really define that for you because there is no version, so best of luck to you" badges.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    2. Re:Um... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's still ok. I'll mail him a money order. Unfortunately it's for a higher amount, but he can just deposit it then send me the difference.

      All will be well.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  5. Slow Browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, so now my browser has to interrogate every single element on a page to determine what's supported BEFORE going to plugins etc.

    Yikes...

  6. Translation by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft got tired of people asking when they were going to fully support HTML 4....

    Now everyone will be able to say "We support HTML" even though nobody fully supports all aspects of the spec. Just like today, only nobody will be able to point their finger at any sort of milestone that they missed, so companies that drag their heels in standards compliance end up looking better.

    How is this a benefit again? It seems to me that we need smaller, more frequent milestones, not elimination of those milestones.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  7. Living Standard? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, in the future it's impossible to figure out what browser supports what? Because, after all, browser support is dragging behind years even now. Or is that the very goal of Google? Make Chrome the de facto standard, and force everyone else to play the catch-up game?

    Seriously, don't do this "living standard" crap. At the very least use minor version numbers to identify a given set of standards. Don't force me to guestimate how a web page I write today is going to behave in browsers 5 years from now; let me specify what behaviour I want.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Problem by Improv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There will be no way to pressure browser developers to be compliant with "NGHTML 4.7" if we can't even talk about it because it lacks a name. It'll also be hard to enumerate features of releases, to decide what version of the standard we're talking about and have programmatic support for that, etc.

    This eliminates most of the benefits of having standards to begin with.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  9. Just like Chrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they mean the browser Chrome? As in Google Chrome 8.0.552.237?
    Is 8.0.552.237 not the version?

  10. Version numbers not related to issue by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'll get pages that becomes invalid with time despite they were valid before.

    That is a result of backward-incompatible changes, not the absence of version numbers.

    1. Re:Version numbers not related to issue by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll get pages that becomes invalid with time despite they were valid before.

      That is a result of backward-incompatible changes, not the absence of version numbers.

      Quite true, but what I think the poster was saying is that without version numbers it would be impossible to claim they were "standards" compliant at any one time. So even if you wrote very good code that was compatible across 99% of all browsers out there, a few years go by and you look like lazy morons that just don't care.

      As for the backwards-incompatible changes, without version numbers you would really have no way to tell what you are doing anyways. Since you can't reference it by version number you would be forced to reference by a specific instance of a problem. The newest Firefox blah blah blah tends to have a problem with this, this, and this, and Opera v.x tends to have a problem with that, that, and that.

      Next thing you know the browsers will go versionless too and then at that point all you can do is drink heavily.