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."

31 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.

    1. Re:Not a Standard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real reason is because the committee which desides whats in the standard couldn't get a consensus, so HTML 5 took forever and its still not a W3C recormendation.

      Look at http://www.w3schools.com/w3c/w3c_html.asp

      HTML 4.01 became a W3C Recommendation 24. December 1999
      XHTML 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation 20. January 2000
      On January 22nd, 2008, W3C published a working draft for HTML 5.

      So 10 years after xhtml 1.0 we still dont have a W3C recormendation for HTML 5, if HTML 6 carried on business as usual then we would probably be looking at 2025 for it...

  2. no more numbers! by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    POST!

  3. 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...

    1. Re:terrible idea by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was my thought, it's tough enough to get browsers in compliance with a specific revision of HTML, now they're wanting to do away with numbering them?

      I have to assume that this is an early April Fool's joke or the person suggesting it is full of it. But then again he works for Google and is probably just the sort of arrogant git that doesn't understand the implications of it for people that aren't constantly upgrading their browsers.

    2. Re:terrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      Or names! Firefox supports HTML Insomnia. IE is now on HTML Narcoleptic. Chrome upgrades to HTML Sonambulia. Opera is still on HTML Purgatory, but they will go to HTML Heaven next month. Oh, the possibilities!

    3. Re:terrible idea by hardburn · · Score: 4, Funny

      They'll start naming them the way sequels get named.

      • HTML: The Legend Continues
      • HTML Unleashed
      • HTML: The Next Generation
      • HTML Reloaded
      • Final HTML Fantasy XII-2
      --
      Not a typewriter
  4. Thanks google by tokul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we'll have beta quality software and beta quality standards. Another engineer brainwashed.

    1. Re:Thanks google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's The Google Way, eternal beta.

  5. 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."
  6. 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.
  7. 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...

  8. 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.

    1. Re:Translation by OnlyJedi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, if the version numbering converged to something interesting like pi (or e, or the golden ratio) I could see people wanting it.
      Then again, that kind of system wouldn't be rational.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. So instead... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So instead of versions, we'll have a big vector of flags, where each flag indicates whether or not a particular HTML feature is required, supported, etc.? And a given web page will work with a given browser only if their two flag vectors are compatible?

    This is stupid. Standards exist for a reason.

  12. Linked blog article is fluff with no insight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go straight to the source instead.

    1. Re:Linked blog article is fluff with no insight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed, and as that article points out, this change in naming applies ONLY to what the WhatWG was calling "HTML5", not to be confused with what W3C calls "HTML 5." For anyone that's been following this, or has read Zeldman's HTML5 book, knows, "HTML5" and "HTML 5" can refer to entirely different sets of standards.

      The W3C, as far as I can tell, is still taking "snapshots" of WhatWG's "HTML" spec and numbering them, and the W3C is still the primary authority when it comes to official web specifications.

      This change really isn't as big of a deal as people here seem to think, and the original article does confuse the issue.

  13. 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?

    1. Re:Just like Chrome? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're still out of date. I have the latest bleeding edge version of chrome. I'm running Chrome: living standard edition.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  14. Their justification FAQ: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their justifications for the decision are here:

    http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F

  15. it just seems appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    GET!

  16. Er, Why use Version Numbers At All? by swsuehr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I broke the cardinal rule and read TFA. From TFA:

    "Hickson mentions that the group will be dropping the HTML5 name immediately, but it we have not received a confirmation that this will happen over at the W3C as well."

    So WHATWG will no longer be using numbers? WHATWG can call it "Hullapuhjelpus" as far as I'm concerned as long as W3C still continues using version numbers. Version numbers provide excellent reference points to featuresets and are useful to implementers, developers, and end users alike.
    From the WHATWG Blog:

    "However, shortly after that we realised that the demand for new features in HTML remained high, and so we would have to continue maintaining HTML and adding features to it before we could call "HTML5" complete, and as a result we moved to a new development model, where the technology is not versioned and instead we just have a living document that defines the technology as it evolves."

    Because there's demand for new features you no longer want to use a numbering scheme? Many standards are evolving. Why not just increment the minor version when new features are added? HTML version 5.1 added this cool thing, 5.2 this cool thing, etc.

    If we're dumping version numbers then why bother calling it Internet Explorer 6, 7, 8, and 9? Why not just call it "Internet Explorer"? We all know that each of those versions render pages the same, right? Hmm. I just realized that I invoked Internet Explorer in a discussion about standards. Mea Culpa.

    How does removing the version number help the people who need to implement and work with the standard?

    1. Re:Er, Why use Version Numbers At All? by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

      How does removing the version number help the people who need to implement and work with the standard?

      It doesn't, it's a fucking disaster. I'll give a concrete example. I used HTML 5 audio on a site with a Flash fallback for browsers that didn't support it. All is good and well. One day, I start getting complaints that the audio is broken. Turns out that a) the HTML 5 spec had changed and b) Firefox had changed to match in a minor point release. Firefox 3.51 worked, Firefox 3.5.2 didn't, as I recall. The new API was indistinguishable from the old API in as much as all the same objects and functions were there, but a return value had changed. So, even with the best practice method of feature detection, anybody writing to the old API was screwed.

      So I fixed it up by removing the HTML 5 audio and made the decision to wait until HTML 5 was published in its final form. Something that I should have done to begin with really, it's madness to use HTML 5 at the moment as it's just not finished yet. You don't know what is going to change.

      And now they want to do away with a "final" version altogether? Gee thanks, guys! How am I going to be able to trust it to be stable enough to rely on ever again? What's going to stop the same thing from happening over and over again?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  17. 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.

  18. Bad interpretation by robmv · · Score: 4, Informative

    What was said is that the moving spec in development is now called HTML, when a snapshot is taken it will be called HTML5, next HTMLX.X.X or any other name. The WHATWG spec is not a finalized document, HTML5 will be snapshoted sometime

  19. Forever in beta. by westlake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 like Chrome, if you will."

    The HTML standards committee takes eternity and a day to finalize anything.

    Which is how and why workable solutions - like Flash - that evolve outside the committee gain traction.

    20% of peak hour Internet traffic in the states was a content-protected Netflix stream before Netflix offered a streaming-only service. HVEC - aka H.265 - will be ready in about two years. High Efficiency Video Coding / HEVC / H.265 : Beyond H.264

    Half the bit rate of H.264 for content of the same quality...