
HTML is the new HTML5 - earnubs
http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
======
teilo
I'll have to reserve judgment on this. The idea makes me nervous.

I guess my main fear is that the "living document" may cease to be a target
that is continuously progressing forward, and instead may become merely a
description of current practices. Who, then, is minding the store?

HTML5 was a decided move away from the stagnation that had become xhtml, with
a lot of new ideas. It created a cohesive goal, and moved toward that goal.
Each major rev of the standard gives you an opportunity to re-assess and, if
necessary, change your vector.

Also, this begs the question: whither validation? What are we validating
against now?

~~~
fleitz
We're still validating against IE6 / IE7.

My process is basically this:

    
    
      reset.css + 960.gs
      Build site entirely in Chrome (dev channel)
      Make sure it works in IE8, turn on compatibility view ensure it works there (usually a few fixed needed for IE7).
      Open it up on iPad / iPhone and ensure that works (usually no issues, somtimes need to set min-width on body)
      Then pop open FF 3.0 and Safari just to make sure there are no issues 
      (Sorry Opera folks, you don't factor into my process)
    

I could care less what the standards say, no customer cares, they just want to
open it in the browser of their choice and see a working site.

This new process makes a lot of sense as what you can use depends primarily on
the browser demographics of the site and what people are willing to forgo to
support IE6. It also meshes well with the release process browsers except for
IE / Safari are moving to which is continuous release. You're always going to
be limited in what part of the spec is 'valid' based on the browser
demographics of your site, because every browser implements 80-90% of the
spec.

~~~
rimantas
Being valid according to spec and having support in a particular browser are
different and unrelated things. I am validating against doctype I use, and
make sure things work as intended in browsers I'd like to support.

------
macrael
Is this a snipe at the W3C from the WHATWG? Is it a coincidence that the W3C
announced the HTML5 logo yesterday, and today the WHATWG is dropping the 5?
Why would that not have been coordinated? I feel like the W3C logo would make
more sense as being HTML instead of HTML5

~~~
annevk
I am a Member of the WHATWG and one of the persons that pushed for this
change. We try not to snipe at the W3C. What happened was that HTML5 was used
to mean a lot more than HTML5-the-spec in practice. The W3C embraced this and
designed a logo around this concept. Now that the W3C was on board with
calling e.g. CSS HTML5 we thought we could safely carry out a move we had
wanted to make at the end of 2009. Namely dropping the 5 from HTML5 since HTML
has no versions. It is a continuously evolving language.

------
qeorge
Its like we're playing a game of Taboo[1] in which I have to describe this set
of technologies and I can't say HTML5. Only its no fun.

Sarcasm aside, if HTML = HTML5, how is one to describe this? "HTML5" wasn't
perfect, but its a helluva lot better than "<canvas> and friends".

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo_%28game%29>

~~~
Hixie
What's wrong with just "HTML"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "<canvas> and friends" or what you meant by
"HTML5" before.

------
luigi
This is a signal to the nitpickers to cut it out already. Now that the actual
HTML5 spec is just called HTML, we're free to use the term HTML5 to describe
the suite of new web standards.

------
benwerd
For some reason the first thing that comes into my head is, "we have always
been at war with Eastasia."

Bizarre Orwellian statements aside, this is a terrible move unless you're
sitting in a development bubble. I can totally get behind HTML being
constantly developed. Of course it is. But you need to take snapshots to act
as reference points for the rest of us. Some of us kind of want to support
users who might not be on the latest and greatest platform.

Do browsers have version numbers? Yes. HTML should too.

(Ideally, browsers should also report what version of HTML they support on
their About page. That'd be rad. But I don't think we're going to see it any
time soon.)

~~~
annevk
You are assuming browsers implement a particular version of HTML. They do not.
I work for a browser vendor (Opera) and what actually happens is that we keep
getting closer to interoperability with each release. I.e. add support for
EventSource, fix several bugs in the HTML parser, etc.

Software (and in particular the browser market) is not the same as a
screwdriver. You do not bring it to market once and it is ready. It
incrementally evolves over time and keeps getting better and better (when done
right).

To counter Orwellian developments we have version control:
<http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker>

------
daleharvey
I think this is a really good step in the right direction, the specification
process is now matching up with the way the standard are actually implemented.

I think in the last few days the w3c + whatwg have taken really positive
steps, both for the understanding of the technologies and the marketing of
them.

~~~
patrickaljord
> think in the last few days the w3c + whatwg have taken really positive steps

w3c releasing an HTML __5 __logo and the whatwg renaming HTML 5 to HTML
doesn't sound that great.

~~~
ghshephard
Think of it as "English as Documented in OED2" versus "English as used on the
street"

Both definitions are actually useful in different contexts. The second one
certainly allows for more flexibility in growth and development. whatwg is
recognizing that HTML, like chrome, isn't as important in a particular ordinal
identifier, as they are in the features they offer and the development model
behind them.

I'm guessing 95% of the people using chrome don't what version they are
currently using - but it has never impacted web developers, or users, from
making use of the browser.

It also aligns with agile development practices, and, if I can stretch a bit,
dvcsystems - people are free to complete new stories in the HTML definition or
browser, without worrying too much about other teams work, or particular
releases.

------
andrewcamel
What about the new HTML5 logo? Didn't they release that just two days ago?
Seems like a bit of a waste...

~~~
rimantas
W3C did release the logo. WHATWG produces the specs, not logos.

------
ramonRecuero
I agree with fleitz. The users do not care about standards and the developers
should focus on the users and consequently just make it work in all browsers
without caring about the theoretical specification.

I just hope IE9 is released soon and finally implements round border...

~~~
rimantas
You comment is wrong on many levels. Let's just start by saying that HTML spec
(formerly known as HTML5) is a very practical work, more than any of the
preceding specs. This was driven by the desire and the goal to "make it work
in all browsers". I guess you don't remember the "if (document.layers)" days…

While true that users don't care, spec is not for the users. It is for
developers and browser vendors, and they care a lot. You may not care what's
under the hood of your car as long as it drives you from the point A to the
point B, but believe me, countless specs are involved.

