It's Official: HTML5 Is a W3C Standard

rjmarvin (3001897) writes The Worldwide Web Consortium today has elevated the HTML5 specification to 'recommendation' status , giving it the group's highest level of endorsement, which is akin to becoming a standard. The W3C also introduced Application Foundations with the announcement of the HTML5 recommendation to aid developers in writing Web applications, and said the organization is working with patents holders of the H.264 codec to agree on a baseline royalty-free interoperability level commitment.

Comments

Well, that's cool I guess

[halivar]

But it's already a de facto standard. I think W3C's clout in this area is diminished because the market already decided it was a standard long before they did.

Re:Well, that's cool I guess

[i kan reed]

Well, there's a steaming pile of ignorance there.

1. Almost all serious websites are xhtml compliant. That's because being compliant is good for any bots crawling the site.
2. Do you imagine that all the HTML5 support that already exists came from nowhere? It was browser devs implementing the pre-reccomendations for HTML5 as a good idea. If the no one "gives a damn" about w3c, you'd find Chrome and Firefox behaving very differently with how they implemented next-gen UI elements.
3. Just use jquery or something, sheesh. No one needs to manually fiddle with DOM anymore.

Re:Well, that's cool I guess

[UnknownSoldier]

> Just use jquery or something, sheesh. No one needs to manually fiddle with DOM anymore.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not agains jQuery. It serves a useful purpose. HOWEVER, yeah, like I have better things to do then debug that unholy-mess called jQuery.

There is a time to manipulate DOM with small, simple, fast Javascript. And a time to use a more heavyweight solution.

Re:Well, that's cool I guess

[Richard_at_work]

Lets not forget where XmlHttpRequest came from...

Re:Well, that's cool I guess

[gstoddart]

Well, to put that into perspective ... Microsoft used to sit on standards boards, and before the standard was finalized they'd file submarine patents, and do their own implementation which was already not compliant and had proprietary extensions.

So, when Microsoft was doing it, it really was evil ... ha ha ha, thanks for telling us how to implement this, now we've patented it, and we're already extending it for our own purposes.

There were a bunch of years where Microsoft never found a standard they couldn't completely fsck up for their own interests.

Microsoft used to do it to shit on the standards process and give themselves something which didn't work with anything else -- because Microsoft didn't want standards to succeed. If it wasn't theirs, it needed to be destroyed.

W3C's clout: they can keep DRM outside

[ciaran2014]

W3C still has an important role: they're the standards body.

We've been telling governments for years to use open standards and HTML is often held up as a shining example. A lot of governments have even made commitments to using open standards but if W3C announces that DRM is part of HTML, then governments will accept DRM and they'll think/claim they're doing what we asked with regard to open standards.

So we need to keep telling W3C that we don't want DRM in HTML. And when W3C says "Oh, but Netflix really wants DRM", we just reply that this doesn't require blessing from W3C.

FSF is almost the only organisation campaigning on this: https://www.defectivebydesign....

Where's the schema (DTD/XML Schema/Relax NG)?

[oever]

Where's the schema (DTD/XML Schema/Relax NG)?

Answer: there is no schema. Validating documents seems to have gone out of fashion. Writing a parser for HTML5 is extremely difficult. Basically the broken parsing behavior of old browsers is now standardized in a crazy arcane description of how to parse HTML5 documents.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syn...

Who benefits from such crazy parsing rules? The current browsers. This raises the bar for entry.