

W3C finalizes HTML5 specification - experiment0
http://w3.org/News/2012#entry-9667

======
damncabbage
To quote @tabatkins[1]:

"The W3C violates its own process, lets HTML go to CR with 100+ bugs still
active:
[https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=adva...](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=HTML5%20spec&product=HTML%20WG&list_id=3367)

(Regarding the process to move to Candidate Recommendation[2], which is what
HTML5 just hit.)

[1] <https://twitter.com/tabatkins/status/280825291620896770>

[2]
[http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transitio...](http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-
reqs)

------
TeeWEE
As the WHATWG clearly states, HTML5 is a living standard, and evolving
constantly.

W3C likes to have solid specs and therefore freezes it and gives it a name.
Its nothing more than tagging a certain timepoint with a version number.

I prefer the living standard. However, giving it a version name makes it
easier to comunicate about sometimes.

This blog posts makes it much clearer: <http://blog.whatwg.org/html-and-html5>

------
kryptiskt
A non-event, it's WHATWG that matters now.

------
gdubya
Maybe those Mayans were on to something...

------
jarek-foksa
Why did they call the spec "HTML5"? This nonsense reminds me of Java
versioning and I'm afraid that "HTML5 2.0" or "HTML5SE 1.4" will follow next.

~~~
highwind
Actually, it says clearly on the article that the next version is HTML 5.1.
Here's the draft of it: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html51-20121217/>

------
maerek
FTA:

1.7.1 How to read this specification

This specification should be read like all other specifications. First, it
should be read cover-to-cover, multiple times. Then, it should be read
backwards at least once. Then it should be read by picking random sections
from the contents list and following all the cross-references.

------
hellerbarde
all kidding aside, this is a good thing, right? I have completely lost track
what this means and where things are heading.

~~~
andybak
The W3C and the WHATWG have parted ways due to various political and
procedural disagreements.

The WHATWG represents the Browser Vendors more directly and is committed to an
ongoing ever-evolving HTML standard rather than fixed release numbers. They
also tend towards the more pragmatic side of things. They are probably the
ones to watch.

(This is based on my limited understanding. I'm happy to be corrected here)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _The WHATWG represents the Browser Vendors more directly and is committed to
> an ongoing ever-evolving HTML standard rather than fixed release numbers._
> //

So you're saying there are two groups claiming to have the canonical HTML spec
now?

~~~
andybak
Exactly. However the W3C have rather lost their claim to legitimacy after the
XHTML2 debacle.

~~~
camus
any sources or articles about it?

~~~
andybak
Other than Googling it for you, no. I vaguely followed the controversy at the
time and so I don't have any specific source.

------
camus
Doesnt matter until all browsers implement correctly the spec 100% ( cf IE ).
What i'd like to see is a certification process. It's good to have a spec ,
but there should be a HTML5 certification ( could be automatic , you pass a
bunch of tests, you get it, you fail you are not HTMLX certified therefore
users shouldnt use your browser ).

~~~
greut
The evolution of the web technologies is an organic growth that won't be
stopped in time to say "HTML5 certified". Browser vendors are pushing
innovations through other medium than the W3C (which sometimes causes problem)
and but what's needed is driven by the applications (that's why people like
facebook are pushing test suites like Ringmark). Looking at browsers using
only the HTML5 perspective is sort of restrictive as people and application
developers may have other needs either high-tech (NaCl, 3D) or slow-tech
(assistive technologies). No browsers can do it 100% right because nobody will
ever agree on what those 100% are now and in the future.

~~~
aenima427
It's not about stopping the evolution of web technologies, as you say, it's
about guaranteeing a minimum baseline of features that we can be sure is going
to be present. A minimum target that you can count on. Most sites have no need
for the advanced features you mention, but if they do then there's nothing to
stop them requiring that support, and browser manufacturers will certainly
keep rolling out new features as they fight for market share. In the end, it's
about moving the baseline forward.

