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."

6 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. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.