W3C declares HTML5 standard complete(techcrunch.com) |
W3C declares HTML5 standard complete(techcrunch.com) |
""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."
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.
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."
From what I found, it seems like this is the most mature NodeJS module for using Gumbo:
I'm grateful to W3C for continuing their standardization work.
http://www.cnet.com/news/html5-is-done-but-two-groups-still-...
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.
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/
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/ or Eric Meyer's http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/network/2000/04/14/doctype/... (for MacIE5 ... like I said it probably won't matter!).
Well, do you think browser vendors will just stop implementing new features because the W3C decides that HTML 5 finished?
The problem is that expectations adjust too, and now we want all these new HTML5 features that were just pioneered in a single browser a couple years ago. Those have a lot of cross-browser issues.
Clients often demand idiocy like "pixel perfection," specific fonts, custom scaling behavior for size (including application-controlled zooming), and other things that simply aren't part of the paradigm for accessing websites through web browsers.
Between that and the fact that going "beyond the basics of CSS" is a pretty common thing, browser interfailure is still a real problem. It's not as bad as it used to be, but the problem is still there, and many of us are still dealing with it regularly.
https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What.27s_the_patent_story_f...
Isn't the whole point of standards to stop that sort of thing happening?
I get that you may feel that someone is just appropriating your work rather than doing their own but if your aim is to build a standard then reusing things is probably going to be part of doing that.
There's no "reusing" going on here, just plain old copying-and-pasting.
- 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).
Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s). (Error code: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap)HTML5 is most all WHATWG.
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".
If they would like to create 20+ different mockups and supply them to me I'll gladly do it for an exorbitant sum money, but otherwise they need to realize that the relative fluid nature of the web and it's many form factors is going to preclude them from getting that pixel perfect design.
Then all of that flies out the window because we have that one asshole manager who promises the world and ensures it will be delivered yesterday :)
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.
In HTML 5, one is abandoned to the CSS tricks and JavaScript hacks to make visual UI components of HTML tags.
Every time I get a consultant gig outside the web world, I rejoice.
Yet I've spend a big part of my career involved in web development.
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.
Presumably, the developers still making Flash games would, since HTML5 Canvas has wider reach than Flash, yet they still use Flash.