
Working on HTML5.1 - davecardwell
https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/04/working-on-html5-1/
======
yincrash
Has this diverged from WHATWG's "living" HTML spec or is it just a snapshot of
it?

~~~
stupidcar
I'm guessing it's yet another hostile fork:
[https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-
at-11](https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11)

As far as I understand, they (the W3C) do this every few months in an attempt
to wrest defacto control of HTML back from WHATWG. They copy the WHATWG spec,
strip out the licensing and authorship information, and publish as "their"
HTML spec.

Then a few months passes, their copy falls behind the actively edited WHATWG
one, so they have to fork it again. And so on, and so on.

It's really pretty pathetic.

~~~
currysausage
This message by Hixie is very insightful if you like to delve into the details
of WHATWG/W3C politics: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-
archive/2014Apr/0034...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-
archive/2014Apr/0034.html)

~~~
danieloaks
That's a really interesting look at the politics between those two. Applies to
some stuff I'm involved in too. Useful link, thanks very much for sharing!

------
WoodenChair
Can somebody in the know please summarize the major changes from 5.0 to 5.1
for every day developers? I found the changelog a little too detailed to read
and grep.

------
rhinoceraptor
It would be nice if people claiming to support web standards (Mozilla) would
actually implement HTML5 already (new HTML5 input types).

~~~
CM30
Agreed. The whole concept of browsers only supporting some parts of the HTML
and CSS specifications but not others (and this support differing quite
significantly between browsers) is ridiculous. How about they focus on getting
on the support down for major recommendations before trying to spend all that
effort on supporting drafts with about two years to go before they're ready
for production?

------
davecardwell
Changelog available here:
[https://w3c.github.io/html/changes.html](https://w3c.github.io/html/changes.html)

------
thewebjoke
_The goal isn’t perfection (which is after all the enemy of good)_

Who has this much arrogance?

This isn't the 1980s there aren't a few hundred developers playing around on
spare university machines here.

This spec is one of the most expensive documents in the world.

I'd be suprised if tens of billions of dollars hasn't been lost because of
just HTML 5 nevermind its predecessors.

HTML 5 affects \- the cost of computers: having to buy better ones as it hogs
more ram and cpu \- the accessibility of the internet as swathes of poorer
users are cut off from websites that don't support their mobile phones or
won't load on their internet speeds \- the accesibility of millions more who
can't browse on internet enabled devices (internet enabled TVs, unupgradeable
phones, etc) \- the accessibility of websites as screenreaders stop working \-
the huge cost of development as web developers have to skill-up \- the
stresses on developers and businesses who don't want to have to re-develop
their work again and again and again and again \- the monopolies that run in
the internet as development of alternative browsers for \- the backwards
compatibility conundrum: we've nearly got rid of the pervasiveness of of the
HTML4 only browsers \- the cost to the environment (this is serious: mobile
devices use some pretty horrible rare metals, they use energy and they aren't
easy to dispose, so if you have to upgrade it's not good) \- the list goes on
...

So the goal should pretty much be perfection, because at the costs involved
_good_ simply isn't _good enough_

If that is too much, then modularise the specs, delegate the work into
manageable specs and if you've not got a spare billion lying around to develop
it, then find it because this spec needs to be awesome.

Failing that, since HTML started: the Linux community realised that X11 isn't
good enough; Microsoft canned its UI framework (or three of them?), Apple and
Google brought in new Mobile UI frameworks and also, J2ME and Symbian largely
disappeared: it might be time for us to consider deprecating HTML and finding
a more appropriate body capable of creating a better web language.

------
kensai
Is there 6.0 in the works also somewhere? Given the language's importance in a
future universally-connected world, it would not surprise me.

~~~
currysausage
Kinda. WHATWG (who do the actual work on HTML) have dropped the version number
and made HTML a living standard:
[https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/)

See also the FAQ:
[https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standar...](https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F)

And this quote by Hixie: "You know what will be around ten years from now by
looking at what is implemented in two browsers today. If it’s implemented in
two browsers today, I can almost guarantee it’ll still be around in ten years.
If it’s not, all bets are off. This has nothing to do with “living standard”
vs. versioned specs, though. HTML4 has all kinds of features that aren’t in
HTML anymore — for example, <object declare> and <a coords>."
([http://html5doctor.com/interview-with-ian-hickson-html-
edito...](http://html5doctor.com/interview-with-ian-hickson-html-editor/))

~~~
cpeterso
Will we still be saying "HTML5" in ten years?

~~~
CM30
The WHATWG thinks we shouldn't really be referring to it as HTML 5 now, just
HTML.

[https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#is-...](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#is-
this-html5)?

[https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_HTML5.3F](https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_HTML5.3F)

~~~
yuhong
I think even the buzzword is a misnomer. Hint: What did people call <canvas>
before "HTML5" took hold?

------
twsted
Is it a joke?

~~~
currysausage
"HTML5 was released in 2014 as the result of a concerted effort by the W3C
HTML Working Group." \- Sure looks like one.

------
seeing
From the document: _HTML is a very large specification._

My translation: HTML is an evolutionary dead end, and because it's so large it
won't die in our lifetime.

