WHATWG are the group that pitched W3C to consider HTML5. W3C's HTML5 isn't based on anything right now since it doesn't exist yet.
From the WHATWG list:
The W3C's HTML working group today resolved to start from the current
WHATWG work. Specifically, the group resolved to review our work, and
will probably build on it.
They also resolved to call this work HTML5.
Thus, the "Web Applications 1.0" spec is now officially named "HTML5"!
I have also checked a copy of the two main WHATWG specs (but with the W3C
boilerplate) into the W3C CVS server.
Going forward, any changes will be committed to both the WHATWG and the
W3C repositories simultaneously.
It may include in some form some HTML5 features, but don't delude yourself that W3C will beat the heck out of it, until it's a tortured mix of their XHTML2 standard and WHATWG's HTML5.
Well seeing as it's starting from their work I rather suspect it will include the bulk of it, because it's highly interdependent.
Then again you seem to have an axe to grind with the W3c, so don't let me stop you..
No you're wrong I'm afraid, the HTML5 that W3C is talking about *is* based on WhatWG's HTML5. It supports HTML and XHTML syntaxes to the the same serialisation, so MS supporting XHTML isnt' wasted. They're basically merging HTML and XHTML.
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.
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*.
You're wilfully missing his point. The point is not about whether the laws should be enforced, it's about whether those enforcing the laws should also be bound by laws. The point is that they're using powers that were given to them for one purpose for another, against the law.
Yes this is no different to De-CSS linking from 2600, only about a more serious target material (child porn vs. DMCA covering 'circumvention' software).
Both are wrong but don't make out the US is any better with this sort of thing.
Yeah although people are very negative about Steorn's claims, and with good reason, there's no fundamental reason why they couldn't have stumbled across a way of tapping some source of energy that would in *practice* be perpetual, without it actually technically creating energy out of nothing.
1. They didn't. They receive things to archive (in the old sense of the word). They didn't put anything in any format, they receive things in a format and put it in a box. 2. We're not talking about 1 piece of software. Potentially there are hundreds. 3. See 2. 4. I agree, but also RTFA. MS aren't actually getting OOXML in here, they're helping the archive by providing virtualised installs of older OSs (probably all MS OSs) to run the old software needed to access the old data.
Maybe I can add a couple.
5. Idiots who proclaim how everyone is an idiot without even reading the article. 6. Idiots who moderate without even reading the article.
It's not an archive of files in a single format, it's an archive of files in general, many formats, depending on which format the file was originally in.
The system wasn't thought up any more than a library thinks up all the books it contains.
Yeah Linux was clearly referenced in the consultation documents. The fact that they've got into bed with MS and are now not even mentioning Linux stinks. The argument that only MS DRM does what they need might have been a bit more plausible if not for the sudden dropping of any mention of Linux and FOSS.
I hope you realise the UK already has far more draconian data retention laws than the new EU directoive is bringing in, and in fact was instrumental in getting the directive brought in too.
We log more and for longer and we also allow bulk trawling of the collected data by MI5.
You can rag on Europe over fishing and carrot jam if you want, but Europe is actually a strong restraining factor on the UK in terms of privacy and human rights in general.
Well that was the point of the OP wasn't it? If you want to make art constitutionally protected free speech then you either have to clearly define art or simply allow anything to be art, and therefore pretty much anything that can be created becomes 'speech'. Doesn't that seem a little illogical to you?
The point about Manhunt 2 wasn't that there was more decapitation than game X or that it had less artistic value than game Y. It was that there was *no other appreciable content* other than killing people, with the focus on how sadistically you can kill them.
Also, I'm pretty sure that you'll find that cartoon depictions of sexual child images aren't illegal in the US as you'll see from the link I posted, and I think you'll find that that's been held up in court (over-ruling a previous verdict). So I'll ask you again, assuming for the sake of argument that it's not illegal of itself, do you think it's acceptable in modern society to have a game about child rape?
I should clarify with regard to my original point. What I'm saying is that the reason they saw fit to not classify this game (only the second game they've ever done it with) was because they found nothing else in the game but stalking and killing people for no purpose other than the brutality of the murders themselves.
By all means defend art, but a game doesn't magically become art just by dint of being a game. A game which is purely a series of brutal murders or child rapes does not magically becomes art either.
I'm going to use the same, admittedly emotionally charged, comparison I used on Kotaku.
To my understanding ( see here ), cartoons or CGI that couldn't be mistaken for a real image, depictions of children engaged in sexual acts aren't illegal in the US.
Suppose someone brought out a game where the primary aim of the game is raping children. Is that acceptable? If not the why not? By your definition the content is not illegal by itself, so it shouldn't be censored right?
However it can be a FUCKING RIGHT and also be used an excuse for grotesque things. The point is that it can be used to defend something that isn't really speech or expression, when you start giving these things more and more flexible definitions.
There is a *reason* for freedom of speech, and it's not there to let you play computer games about murdering people in horrible ways, it's there to stop people from repressing your opinions.
I pretty much agree with you, and until quite recently I accepted that there was a consensus in favour of man made global warming. However recently I've been shown a certain amount of evidence that the supposed scientific consensus may actually be more a consensus in the reporting of the issue in the media.
I'm not trying to suggest any sort of liberal bias in the media, I'm primarily of a left wing persuasion myself, and I'm not suggesting there's any conspiracy, but the general state of media reporting of science is atrocious and tends to be very sensationalist and very poorly researched.
So I'm not saying there's no global warming, and I'm not saying there's no scientific consensus, but I would say that for the layman the supposed scientific consensus is not really something we can know without following more specialist publications.
Slashdot Mirror
Well seeing as it's starting from their work I rather suspect it will include the bulk of it, because it's highly interdependent.
Then again you seem to have an axe to grind with the W3c, so don't let me stop you..
No you're wrong I'm afraid, the HTML5 that W3C is talking about *is* based on WhatWG's HTML5. It supports HTML and XHTML syntaxes to the the same serialisation, so MS supporting XHTML isnt' wasted. They're basically merging HTML and XHTML.
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
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*.
Haiku is coming along very nicely though, and it's open source.
You're wilfully missing his point. The point is not about whether the laws should be enforced, it's about whether those enforcing the laws should also be bound by laws. The point is that they're using powers that were given to them for one purpose for another, against the law.
*cluestick*
He was making a ridiculous unsupported assertion to highlight an unsupported assertion.
I know nothing about honour killings personally but his point was pretty clear..
Yes this is no different to De-CSS linking from 2600, only about a more serious target material (child porn vs. DMCA covering 'circumvention' software).
Both are wrong but don't make out the US is any better with this sort of thing.
Yeah although people are very negative about Steorn's claims, and with good reason, there's no fundamental reason why they couldn't have stumbled across a way of tapping some source of energy that would in *practice* be perpetual, without it actually technically creating energy out of nothing.
1. They didn't. They receive things to archive (in the old sense of the word). They didn't put anything in any format, they receive things in a format and put it in a box.
2. We're not talking about 1 piece of software. Potentially there are hundreds.
3. See 2.
4. I agree, but also RTFA. MS aren't actually getting OOXML in here, they're helping the archive by providing virtualised installs of older OSs (probably all MS OSs) to run the old software needed to access the old data.
Maybe I can add a couple.
5. Idiots who proclaim how everyone is an idiot without even reading the article.
6. Idiots who moderate without even reading the article.
It's not an archive of files in a single format, it's an archive of files in general, many formats, depending on which format the file was originally in.
The system wasn't thought up any more than a library thinks up all the books it contains.
Yeah Linux was clearly referenced in the consultation documents. The fact that they've got into bed with MS and are now not even mentioning Linux stinks. The argument that only MS DRM does what they need might have been a bit more plausible if not for the sudden dropping of any mention of Linux and FOSS.
I hope you realise the UK already has far more draconian data retention laws than the new EU directoive is bringing in, and in fact was instrumental in getting the directive brought in too.
We log more and for longer and we also allow bulk trawling of the collected data by MI5.
You can rag on Europe over fishing and carrot jam if you want, but Europe is actually a strong restraining factor on the UK in terms of privacy and human rights in general.
So pretending to graphically murder someone is more suitable for younger people than watching people have sex?
;)
You must be from the US
Well that was the point of the OP wasn't it? If you want to make art constitutionally protected free speech then you either have to clearly define art or simply allow anything to be art, and therefore pretty much anything that can be created becomes 'speech'. Doesn't that seem a little illogical to you?
The point about Manhunt 2 wasn't that there was more decapitation than game X or that it had less artistic value than game Y. It was that there was *no other appreciable content* other than killing people, with the focus on how sadistically you can kill them.
Also, I'm pretty sure that you'll find that cartoon depictions of sexual child images aren't illegal in the US as you'll see from the link I posted, and I think you'll find that that's been held up in court (over-ruling a previous verdict). So I'll ask you again, assuming for the sake of argument that it's not illegal of itself, do you think it's acceptable in modern society to have a game about child rape?
I should clarify with regard to my original point. What I'm saying is that the reason they saw fit to not classify this game (only the second game they've ever done it with) was because they found nothing else in the game but stalking and killing people for no purpose other than the brutality of the murders themselves.
By all means defend art, but a game doesn't magically become art just by dint of being a game. A game which is purely a series of brutal murders or child rapes does not magically becomes art either.
I'm going to use the same, admittedly emotionally charged, comparison I used on Kotaku.
To my understanding ( see here ), cartoons or CGI that couldn't be mistaken for a real image, depictions of children engaged in sexual acts aren't illegal in the US.
Suppose someone brought out a game where the primary aim of the game is raping children. Is that acceptable? If not the why not? By your definition the content is not illegal by itself, so it shouldn't be censored right?
No he doesn't.
Emotional and self righteous, well done +1.
However it can be a FUCKING RIGHT and also be used an excuse for grotesque things. The point is that it can be used to defend something that isn't really speech or expression, when you start giving these things more and more flexible definitions.
There is a *reason* for freedom of speech, and it's not there to let you play computer games about murdering people in horrible ways, it's there to stop people from repressing your opinions.
I pretty much agree with you, and until quite recently I accepted that there was a consensus in favour of man made global warming. However recently I've been shown a certain amount of evidence that the supposed scientific consensus may actually be more a consensus in the reporting of the issue in the media.
I'm not trying to suggest any sort of liberal bias in the media, I'm primarily of a left wing persuasion myself, and I'm not suggesting there's any conspiracy, but the general state of media reporting of science is atrocious and tends to be very sensationalist and very poorly researched.
So I'm not saying there's no global warming, and I'm not saying there's no scientific consensus, but I would say that for the layman the supposed scientific consensus is not really something we can know without following more specialist publications.
How the hell is that flamebait?
Or it could be the difference between 'error rate' and 'error ate'...
The OP makes no sense, which is probably why the second post assumed it was an unintentional mistake.
That was my point ;)
Drinks are on you!