9 ms·
W3C declares HTML5 standard complete
- yuhong 12y agoWonder when the IE standard support documents listing all the "deviations" from HTML5 will happen.
- kyriakos 12y agolatest versions of IE are pretty good regarding standards.
- nostrademons 12y agoThe other huge accomplishment of HTML5 is completely standardizing many fundamental parts of the web that previously were a mess of browser incompatibilities. 6 years ago, if you wanted to parse HTML, you might reach for BeautifulSoup, or libxml, or Hpricot, or Nokogiri...and they would all be subtly different in the parse tree they produced. And they couldn't do any better, because if you viewed the page in IE, or Firefox, or Chrome, or Safari, you might get a different parse tree. Now, IE9+, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are all basically guaranteed to look at the same page in the same way, and the "toolsmith" parsers like Gumbo or html5lib are all rapidly converging on the standard. So it's finally possible to see a page the way a browser sees it.
- malandrew 12y agoThanks for the mention of the Gumbo parser. I didn't know about that project. From what I found, it seems like this is the most mature NodeJS module for using Gumbo: https://github.com/karlwestin/node-gumbo-parser https://github.com/karlwestin/node-gumbo-parser
- pjmlp 12y ago> Now, IE9+, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are all basically guaranteed to look at the same page in the same way, and the "toolsmith" parsers like Gumbo or html5lib are all rapidly converging on the standard. So it's finally possible to see a page the way a browser sees it. The web projects I have to take part on, are a distant reality from that description.
- killertypo 12y agoIs there any particular reason? Requiring support for older or legacy browsers? I just recently wrapped up a project utilizing customized Twitter Bootstrap / CSS3 / HTML5 and I was pleasantly surprised at how smooth everything went between IE/Chrome/Safari/FF. This is the first time, in a long time, that everything just "worked."
- LukeB_UK 12y agoBootstrap deals with a lot of cross browser issues.
- killertypo 12y agoYes and no, it depends, If you use the entire suite of bootstrap, yes. We did not, we used it for the grid system (getting those nice big perfectly sized columns). Everything else was hand written CSS and HTML.
- pjmlp 12y agoAll projects tend to require IE 8+, specific versions of FF, Safari and Chrome. Oh and the fun that is working with native iOS, Android and WP browsers. Then put on top, whatever web framework might be required by the customer. The fun starts when the UI isn't working pixel perfect to those Photoshop mockups or the cool HTML 5 effect that can only be partially implemented in all browser versions mentioned in a "Request For Proposal".
- lucideer 12y agoThe term "WHATWG" seems to be conspicuously absent from this article. I wonder where they factor into this announcement.
- yuhong 12y agoI think they already moved to living standard.
- dpkendal 12y agoIndeed, the W3C's work on HTML5 is irrelevant. It exists only for the purpose of giving the W3C-qua-organization the appearance of being involved in the further development of HTML.
- gsnedders 12y agoI think that's disingenuous — even as someone who has been around the WHATWG for longer than the W3C has been working on HTML5. One clear reason that publication as a REC is important because it implies a royalty-free patent grant between all members of the WG.
- pornel 12y agoIt's interesting that WHATWG is trying to get the patent commitments by being a W3C Community Group: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What.27s_the_patent_story_for_WHATWG_standards.3F https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What.27s_the_patent_story_f...
- nostrademons 12y agoThey have different purposes. In practical terms, the "HTML5 standard" is really defined by whatever the most popular browsers implement - we saw this in vivid detail when IE6 was the most popular browser and Microsoft made a mockery of the standard. The WHATWG standard exists to track the evolving consensus, so that the major browsers don't diverge too much and we don't go back to the web c. 2005. The W3C spec is so that other interested parties, ones who need to have a finalized doc to shoot for, have something to shoot for that everybody has agreed upon.
- jaredmcateer 12y agoDoes anyone know how is Doctype versioning going to work with W3Cs snapshoting of the living standard? Or are browsers just going to ignore W3C and stick to implementing WHATWGs spec?
- yuhong 12y agoI think even the W3C rejected DOCTYPE versioning, it is still just <!DOCTYPE html>.
- rimantas 12y agoNo browser ever paid any attention to the version of the HTML specified. The only use for DOCTYPE—and the reason it remains in HTML5—is "doctype switching", i.e. different rendering modes are triggered in the browsers. You can use "html", "html5", "html6.2" or "foobarbaz" as your doctype, the effect will be the same—they will all trigger standards compliant mode.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago>'You can use "html", "html5", "html6.2" or "foobarbaz" as your doctype, the effect will be the same—they will all trigger standards compliant mode.' // You're wrong if your asserting that any doctype produces the same results globally but it probably doesn't matter unless you're targeting legacy UA. See e.g. "Appendix: Handling of Some Doctypes in text/html" at https://hsivonen.fi/doctype/ https://hsivonen.fi/doctype/ or Eric Meyer's http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/network/2000/04/14/doctype/index.html http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/network/2000/04/14/doctype/... (for MacIE5 ... like I said it probably won't matter!).
- gsnedders 12y agoSpeaking of IE/Mac, that's the reason why the HTML DOCTYPE now is `<!doctype html>`. If it hadn't been for IE/Mac, it'd be `<!doctype>`.
- kibibu 12y agoI have vague memories of Frames not working under the HTML4 Strict doctype
- gsnedders 12y agohttp://html5doctor.com/the-ride-to-5/ http://html5doctor.com/the-ride-to-5/ is an interesting overview of perspectives of various people who've been around HTML5 for years about its publication as a REC.
- malandrew 12y agoI'm hoping for a scene graph standard for HTML6 and a spec that allows multiple documents per window (which themselves could be nodes on a scene graph) instead of the one document per window.
- sigvef 12y agoIframes sort-of do this already.
- annamarie 12y agoHTML5 is a living standard, no? There isn't going to be an "HTML6".
- thristian 12y agoThe spec published by WHATWG is a living standard, and is just called "HTML". The expectation is that every so often the W3C will pick a revision of the WHATWG's HTML spec and stamp it with a version number.
- gsnedders 12y agoNote the SVN revision the REC is based on is almost a year old.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> The expectation is that every so often the W3C will pick a revision of the WHATWG's HTML spec and stamp it with a version number. W3C HTML5 is not just a snapshot of a particular revision of the WHATWG Living Standard. In a reasonable world, W3C HTML5 (etc.) would be a subset of the WHATWG Living Standard on the date the former was published, but I'm not sure that even that is strictly the case.
- cwyers 12y agoWell, this announcement seems to indicate that from W3C's point of view, it's not living anymore. They've finalized the standard, and are starting work on HTML 5.1. WHATWG apparently no longer numbers their standard. [1] 1) https://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 https://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
- indubitably 12y agoThe most important thing about HTML5 is <video>? What a weird statement.
- malandrew 12y agoMy thoughts exactly. Solving tag soup would be the most important thing in my opinion.
- Igglyboo 12y agoMaybe they mean for end users? Most people aren't going to care if developers have an easier job with browser compatibility.
- bouk 12y agoMaking Flash obsolete is pretty important
- general_failure 12y agoVideo doesn't kill the flash star.
- da_n 12y agoI'm hoping Chrome will drop their built-in flash runtime, only thing it's used for is ads.
- j4meserljoness 12y agoCool, but It doesn't really matter what W3C says. In the end it is all about what the Oligarchy of popular browser implementers decide to implement.
- valisystem 12y ago> the Oligarchy of popular browser implementers In the past, only Mozilla cared about what the W3C said, and they built Firefox on the idea that interoperability by following the standards is the way to go. Not that long after Apple initiated Safari, and led Google to their own browser initiative. All this because Mozilla, the insignificant actor of the all IE time, decided to follow W3C. You're not totally wrong telling that W3C doesn't mater that much, but browsers are what they are today because of W3C for a good part, and it still have a very important place in the browser game.
- domenicd 12y agoThis is pretty much the opposite of how things went down. If browsers followed the W3C, we'd be living in XML utopia (XHTML2, XForms, XLink, XEvents, etc.). In 2004 a group of implementers (specifically Mozilla, Opera, and Apple) proposed to the W3C to focus on web applications by evolving HTML and the DOM, but were flat-out turned down, and had to go off and form their own standards organization---the WHATWG. Today, that is where much of the foundational work of the web platform is still done: https://spec.whatwg.org/ https://spec.whatwg.org/
- pjmlp 12y agoAnd we could have goten something similar to XAML, instead of the HTML, CSS magic and JavaScript workarounds to replicate desktop behavious and UIs.
- coldtea 12y agoDo the names XHTML2, XForms, XLink, XEvents invoke an image of something like XAML to you? We would have ended in some huge JAVA EE circa 2004 mess, with XML to spare and perhaps RDF and a couple ad-hoc languages thrown in for good measure.
- codeaken 12y agoFinal standards document http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/
- RexRollman 12y agoThis announcement makes me miss Mark Pilgrim. I wish he was still publishing his blog.
- taf2 12y agoi guess it's finally time to upgrade that .vimrc to include syntax highlighting for the new tags... canvas, video, audio, nav, section, etc..
- ushi 12y agoi know it was just a joke, but for vim users working with html i recommend the html5 plugin[0]. [0] https://github.com/othree/html5.vim https://github.com/othree/html5.vim
- cwyers 12y agoThis CNet article seems to have a lot more detail than the Techcrunch one: http://www.cnet.com/news/html5-is-done-but-two-groups-still-wrestle-over-webs-future/#ftag=CAD590a51e http://www.cnet.com/news/html5-is-done-but-two-groups-still-...
- johansch 12y agohttp://www.cnet.com/au/news/html5-is-done-but-two-groups-still-wrestle-over-webs-future/ http://www.cnet.com/au/news/html5-is-done-but-two-groups-sti... ""The real problem is of course that the W3C is still copying our work even after we asked them to stop doing that," [Anne] van Kesteren said. It's legal, but "oftentimes it comes pretty close [to] or is actual plagiarism." It's one of many instances of copying, Hickson said. "For reasons that defy my understanding, the W3C staff refuse to treat the WHATWG as a peer organization" that relies on WHATWG's work, he said. Instead, it creates its own copies of some standards. "They'll eventually say they have a 'final' version, and then they'll stop fixing bugs. It's very sad."
- cwyers 12y agoIt's amusing to me to watch the WHATWG people complain about the W3C having the temerity to put out revisions to their own specification, and then complaining about how the W3C is copying their work. Would they rather W3C put out an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT HTML specification from theirs? Would that be better for anyone at all?
- kijin 12y agoI dunno, perhaps if the W3C and WHATWG produced radically different specifications, one of them would be explicitly rejected by everyone and thus die a clean death. That might be better than having two very similar, equally authoritative, but subtly different specifications, one of which is sort of but not quite a snapshot of the other.
- greyfade 12y agoEqually authoritative? I had no idea WHATWG was drafting specifications, let alone considered authoritative.
- domenicd 12y agoMany of the foundational specifications of the web are authored and maintained by the WHATWG these days: https://spec.whatwg.org/ https://spec.whatwg.org/ - DOM, HTML: obvious - URL, Encoding, Fetch: foundational building blocks - XHR, Fullscreen, Notifications: important features There are also other up-and-coming specs like Books, Figures, Streams, or Loader (the latter two not listed).
- deskamess 12y agoI was hoping they would add file api support for downloading to non sand boxed environment with mandatory user interaction prompts. The api would prompt for the file download location (via file dialog) but after that, how the file is filled up is up to the web client (and happens in the background). This would allow for parallel download workers via the existing get range option.
- yoran 12y agoKind of ironic that the embedded Vimeo video in the article is Flash.