What utter tosh. The HTML specification process was managed by the W3C whose members comprise just about every single industry sector under the sun and number in the hundreds.
I know. But their input wasn't welcomed by the XHTML Working Group while they were drafting XHTML2.
Are you seriously saying this is a less balanced process than a couple of browser manufacturers going their own way and riding a way of populism and ignorance to push their spec? I'm not sure how the current situation is better where sure comments are allowed, but they're ignored by grand dicator Hixie et al.
The WHATWG accepted input from everyone. Stop spreading lies.
The spec was taking time because it takes time to make sure things are done properly, and to make sure raised issues are examined, and, if need be, correct. WHATWG still don't get this to this day, which is why they've declared HTML5 a living spec, ready for use, rather than just waiting for W3C to ratify it when it's been confirmed acceptable.
I recall them saying that versioning should be dropped because HTML is an ever-evolving spec, which is pretty much right.
You seem to be ignoring all the work they did on HTML5 for years while the W3C was stuck with its head in the sand.
Right, so why does introducing new and important features require taking a backwards step, like pushing SGML-esque markup up the long proven beneficial XML markup?
XML prioritises well-formed mark-up while the focus should be on semantically rich pages.
It requires the client to check for well-formed mark-up each time when it's the job of the server/webmaster. If the check fails, you get an unhelpful error page instead of the content.
It's an extra barrier of entry for beginning webmasters that ultimately isn't meaningful. Everyone should easily be able to publish on the web.
No but there is semantic meaning to be gained by adding something akin to CSS where you can either do it inline with semantic= or with a sheet declaring semantics which are applied to the relevant classes.
Moving the problem doesn't seem like a solution to me.
But here's the thing- WHATWG was made aware of ALL of these issues, from a number of sources, on a number of occasions. If it's so open and democratic, why did it pay absolutely no attention whatsoever? Because it's simply inept? or because it's not the open democratic group that you seem to believe it is.
It sounds to me like you're the one who is angry here that they didn't incorporate your ideas. Your idea also sounds like making HTML into something it is not, and that's bad for backwards compatibility.
That's funny. I'm an independant web developer and I have had the opposite experience. Considering the friction between the WHATWG and the HTML Working Group, you're most likely biased.
WHATWG hijacked the web standards process, and primarily folks behind Safari and Firefox.
You're guilty of revisionism there. The truth is that the XHTML 2.0 spec writers hijacked the web standards process, locking out everyone from commenting and contributing to the process. The spec was becoming a nightmare with things like making every element a possible anchor.
That is the whole reason the WHATWG was formed. To open up the web standards process again and make a spec that reflects today's reality instead of the delusion you preach.
No, it's not to make old pages automagically standards compliant, it's to give the web developer the tools that he has been missing for years, like more elements to mark up diverse content and allow for different kinds of validating input (like dates). For example, there's no semantic meaning to be gained from <div class="article">. Introducing the article element does add semantic meaning.
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather do <span class="bold">.
Class names should never reference style, though. True, you're still mixing content and style when using the b element, but at least there the intent is clear semantically as "something that was possibly arbitrarily made bold, often by contributors".
I know about quoting and using operators like +. They don't help. For example, try searching for +"ps cave". You still get results with pscave in them.
My Windows 95 machine has finished booting and is ready at the desktop a little longer than 30 seconds after pressing the power button. This is a machine from 1998.
Meanwhile, Mozilla said this week that starting with Firefox 8, Mozilla will automatically block browser add-ons until users approve them, which should put an end to sneaky installs."
Sneaky add-ons are installed by software that has the priviledge of messing with the system, like windows updates. When they have such a priviledge, it's easy to manipulate the user's profile to make it accept the new add-ons. They can't protect themselves against this.
I have a hard time these days finding things with Google, not because of sites trying to game Google, but because Google changes my search terms as they see fit. I can type in one term and it will change it with a term that looks similar and include it in the search results. There's no way to have it search what you told it to search any more.
Firefox 3.5 came out a little over two years ago, in June 2009. 3.6 came out a little over a year and a half ago, in January 2010. I really can't blame them for trying to use modern tools when safety considerations for exploits and other vulnerabilities themselves should compel users to make an effort to keep up.
Excuse me? What kind of twisted logic is this? The web browser is my responsibility, not Google's. Not supporting them is one thing, but locking them out is different.
How do you explain SeaMonkey (or any other minority web browser) users being left in the cold, then? Face it, it's pure discrimination.
If anything annoys me, it's that Mozilla has chosen version numbers for their current browser revisions that make no sense.
While I agree with you, Firefox's versioning has always been arbitrary. It's just more visible now. First we had Firefox 1.1 after 1.0, but then they preferred to use 1.5. Then instead of 1.6 they chose 2.0. Next was 3.0. You know the rest.
The douchebag behaviour started earlier than you may think. They do plenty of user agent sniffing on their services. For example, their reverse image search is a simple file upload to use, yet they sniff for it. Got SeaMonkey (even the latest)? Doesn't work. Firefox 2.0? Not good enough. Firefox 3.0? Still not good enough. Firefox 3.5? Nope. Firefox 3.6? Now we're talking.
Notifications from IM and e-mail programs can still scroll onto the screen. Task bar buttons can flash when new IM messages are received. It's not always easy to keep your attention in one spot.
As it is today, every Terms of Service has a clause that essentially says "we can change this at any time without notification". Well, except in some (all?) places in Europe. Every time PayPal or Nintendo Europe changes their Terms of Service, I'm notified by e-mail before the change, and I can agree or disagree.
Given that most advertising formulas are pay-per-click, I doubt people who want to block ads would make a difference. They are the type to not click ads, so they actually save the advertisers bandwidth.
Your point doesn't make any sense. The less regulation there is, the more power corporations have because there are no regulations to stop them from exercising too much power. Explain to me how more government regulation gives corporations more power. As it stands now, you only have a single proposition, and to that I can simply say: correlation is not causation.
Ever heard of Superfund sites? Minimum wage? Work and safety compliance?
All of these are government regulations that limit corporate power.
Slashdot Mirror
But, as we've seen with XHTML 1.0, with Appendix C the concept of an XML-based HTML becomes close to useless.
I know. But their input wasn't welcomed by the XHTML Working Group while they were drafting XHTML2.
The WHATWG accepted input from everyone. Stop spreading lies.
I recall them saying that versioning should be dropped because HTML is an ever-evolving spec, which is pretty much right.
You seem to be ignoring all the work they did on HTML5 for years while the W3C was stuck with its head in the sand.
Moving the problem doesn't seem like a solution to me.
It sounds to me like you're the one who is angry here that they didn't incorporate your ideas. Your idea also sounds like making HTML into something it is not, and that's bad for backwards compatibility.
It did happen on YouTube. You can watch many (all?) videos using the WebM format natively in your web browser.
While I agree with your points, sir, I'd appreciate it you typed "a lot" instead of "alot".
That's funny. I'm an independant web developer and I have had the opposite experience. Considering the friction between the WHATWG and the HTML Working Group, you're most likely biased.
It's perfectly possible to work with an XML engine and have it serve HTML data to the client. They're not mutually exclusive.
You're guilty of revisionism there. The truth is that the XHTML 2.0 spec writers hijacked the web standards process, locking out everyone from commenting and contributing to the process. The spec was becoming a nightmare with things like making every element a possible anchor.
That is the whole reason the WHATWG was formed. To open up the web standards process again and make a spec that reflects today's reality instead of the delusion you preach.
No, it's not to make old pages automagically standards compliant, it's to give the web developer the tools that he has been missing for years, like more elements to mark up diverse content and allow for different kinds of validating input (like dates). For example, there's no semantic meaning to be gained from <div class="article">. Introducing the article element does add semantic meaning.
Why is this a problem in the first place?
Class names should never reference style, though. True, you're still mixing content and style when using the b element, but at least there the intent is clear semantically as "something that was possibly arbitrarily made bold, often by contributors".
I know about quoting and using operators like +. They don't help. For example, try searching for +"ps cave". You still get results with pscave in them.
My Windows 95 machine has finished booting and is ready at the desktop a little longer than 30 seconds after pressing the power button. This is a machine from 1998.
They're still mirroring the release. It's not the first time that some idiot submits a story like this.
Sneaky add-ons are installed by software that has the priviledge of messing with the system, like windows updates. When they have such a priviledge, it's easy to manipulate the user's profile to make it accept the new add-ons. They can't protect themselves against this.
I have a hard time these days finding things with Google, not because of sites trying to game Google, but because Google changes my search terms as they see fit. I can type in one term and it will change it with a term that looks similar and include it in the search results. There's no way to have it search what you told it to search any more.
She's not only a former Microsoft employee. She has worked with Mozilla on Firefox's security as well.
Excuse me? What kind of twisted logic is this? The web browser is my responsibility, not Google's. Not supporting them is one thing, but locking them out is different.
How do you explain SeaMonkey (or any other minority web browser) users being left in the cold, then? Face it, it's pure discrimination.
While I agree with you, Firefox's versioning has always been arbitrary. It's just more visible now. First we had Firefox 1.1 after 1.0, but then they preferred to use 1.5. Then instead of 1.6 they chose 2.0. Next was 3.0. You know the rest.
That's what I was referring to. Older or unknown web browsers don't even get that thanks to user agent sniffing.
The douchebag behaviour started earlier than you may think. They do plenty of user agent sniffing on their services. For example, their reverse image search is a simple file upload to use, yet they sniff for it. Got SeaMonkey (even the latest)? Doesn't work. Firefox 2.0? Not good enough. Firefox 3.0? Still not good enough. Firefox 3.5? Nope. Firefox 3.6? Now we're talking.
I disagreed with Nintendo Europe's increased tracking, so I disagreed. I haven't seen any difference.
Of course, if you don't agree with PayPal's new policies, I can imagine not being able to use their services any more, which makes sense.
So, what's your point?
Notifications from IM and e-mail programs can still scroll onto the screen. Task bar buttons can flash when new IM messages are received. It's not always easy to keep your attention in one spot.
As it is today, every Terms of Service has a clause that essentially says "we can change this at any time without notification". Well, except in some (all?) places in Europe. Every time PayPal or Nintendo Europe changes their Terms of Service, I'm notified by e-mail before the change, and I can agree or disagree.
I stand corrected when it comes to Slashdot, sir. Lots of sites use Google's AdSense, though.
If you don't click the ads you're likely not funding anyone.
Given that most advertising formulas are pay-per-click, I doubt people who want to block ads would make a difference. They are the type to not click ads, so they actually save the advertisers bandwidth.
Your point doesn't make any sense. The less regulation there is, the more power corporations have because there are no regulations to stop them from exercising too much power. Explain to me how more government regulation gives corporations more power. As it stands now, you only have a single proposition, and to that I can simply say: correlation is not causation.
Ever heard of Superfund sites? Minimum wage? Work and safety compliance?
All of these are government regulations that limit corporate power.