

HTML5 is now stable and "feature complete" - paulschlacter
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-insider/2013/01/html5-is-now-stable-and-feature-complete.html

======
Shish2k
Something missing from the title:

> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has said

For why that's relevant, note who's in the copyright notices of the W3C's
HTML5 spec: Copyright © 2012 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio)

Compared to WHATWG's HTML5 spec: © Copyright 2004-2011 Apple Computer, Inc.,
Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software ASA.

~~~
fidz
Do WhatWG and W3C work in different field? If so, what are them?

~~~
Shish2k
AFAIK, browser companies and various other individuals who were unhappy with
the W3C being slow and out of touch with real-world browser development and
usage decided to split off and maintain their own version of the HTML5
standard - this WHATWG version is the one that the industry considers
canonical

(I'm not too sure on the actual differences between specs; it's been a while
since I did any work where modern technology was an option, so my info mostly
comes from tech news sites...)

------
randomfool
"Businesses know what they can rely on for HTML5 in the coming years, and what
their customers will demand. Likewise, developers will know what skills to
cultivate"

This is great, but the specs are nearly unfathomable from the perspective of
what is usable and what is not.

For example, AFAICT, the 'stable' portion refers to this spec-
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>

Now for any 'modern' app, you probably want to use features such as FormData
or typed arrays, which do not fall under this spec. As far as I can find,
those are: <http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/>
<http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/>

Which are not yet stable.

So we have this unreadable spec, which covers only a portion of the things
available and is pretty much unusable. And it looks like all the browser
makers are going through whatwg rather than w3c, so I don't know who the
audience is.

------
pfraze
For those interested in next steps:

\- w3c Plan 2014: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-
policy/html5-2014-plan.html>

\- proposed elements for HTML.next: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/next/markup/>

------
kbutler
This is not the HTML5 you're looking for, or at least, not all the HTML5
you're looking for.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/> is missing various things you expect in HTML5
(e.g., web storage, web sockets, etc.). These items are in the WHATWG living
standard: <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/>

For differences, see [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/introduction.html#how-do-the-whatwg-and-w3c-specifications-
differ)?

------
Avshalom
Having not paid much attention recently, is the audio situation still kind of
dreadful?

~~~
paul9290
I had thought the same thing too, but after updating our app to a mobile web
app, we found there are many out of the box solutions that make audio work
across various platforms and browsers.

~~~
danielhughes
What was your approach? I'm working on a similar effort that requires making
audio work via a mobile web app and am interested in the details of your
solution.

------
wslh
Now I hope that mobile browsers be more compliant, specially on
contentEditable issues.

~~~
visualR
Yeah, that would make rich text editing much easier

