×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

336 comments

Not a Standard. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943742)

If you never finalize it's not a standard. This sounds like a Microsoft move to me.

Re:Not a Standard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944106)

It sounds like an article in the tech section of The Onion.

The nice thing about standards, is that we have so many to choose from. Or none at all. It's HTML, Jim, but not as we know it.

W

Re:Not a Standard. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944262)

The real reason is because the committee which desides whats in the standard couldn't get a consensus, so HTML 5 took forever and its still not a W3C recormendation.

Look at http://www.w3schools.com/w3c/w3c_html.asp

HTML 4.01 became a W3C Recommendation 24. December 1999
XHTML 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation 20. January 2000
On January 22nd, 2008, W3C published a working draft for HTML 5.

So 10 years after xhtml 1.0 we still dont have a W3C recormendation for HTML 5, if HTML 6 carried on business as usual then we would probably be looking at 2025 for it...

Re:Not a Standard. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944458)

If you never finalize it's not a standard. This sounds like a Microsoft move to me.

Not a Microsoft move. It's a Google move. Google is Evil.

Ian Hickson (Google, ian@hixie.ch) part of the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), which develops HTML5 together with the W3C.

no more numbers! (4, Funny)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943744)

POST!

Re:no more numbers! (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943758)

Because of a lack of numbers, my post is just as valuable as your post, regardless of the order of posting! So there!

Re:no more numbers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944094)

Because of a lack of numbers, my post is just as valuable as your post, regardless of the order of posting! So there!

Just as valuable, but infinitely less entertaining.

it just seems appropriate (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944092)

GET!

terrible idea (5, Insightful)

godrik (1287354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943760)

You'll get pages that becomes invalid with time despite they were valid before. That sounds like a very stupid idea.

Until you name the revision by dates, which is basically the same thing as giving version numbers...

Re:terrible idea (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944010)

That was my thought, it's tough enough to get browsers in compliance with a specific revision of HTML, now they're wanting to do away with numbering them?

I have to assume that this is an early April Fool's joke or the person suggesting it is full of it. But then again he works for Google and is probably just the sort of arrogant git that doesn't understand the implications of it for people that aren't constantly upgrading their browsers.

Re:terrible idea (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944196)

Until you name the revision by dates, which is basically the same thing as giving version numbers...

Or names! Firefox supports HTML Insomnia. IE is now on HTML Narcoleptic. Chrome upgrades to HTML Sonambulia. Opera is still on HTML Purgatory, but they will go to HTML Heaven next month. Oh, the possibilities!

Re:terrible idea (1)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944216)

You'll get pages that becomes invalid with time despite they were valid before. That sounds like a very stupid idea.

Until you name the revision by dates, which is basically the same thing as giving version numbers...

Then instead of naming different versions after cats or desserts, they can name them after breeds of dogs, vegetables, or diseases!

Version numbers not related to issue (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944288)

You'll get pages that becomes invalid with time despite they were valid before.

That is a result of backward-incompatible changes, not the absence of version numbers.

Re:terrible idea (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944420)

This is the same thing that happens with Operating Systems' need for versioning. What does the board plan, "reflexion" API's where each dev must ask the browser what it can do and assume the missing features in the ethereal standard are enough for the page to render 3 years from now? 10 years from now?

Just like an OS, the standard can drop features at any time; the point of numbers is to tell the dev from an easy test what stylesheets to junk and what error messages to give.

Thanks google (5, Funny)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943762)

Now we'll have beta quality software and beta quality standards. Another engineer brainwashed.

Re:Thanks google (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943790)

That's The Google Way, eternal beta.

Um... (5, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943770)

People will still need to differentiate between implementations of HTML that have different features...do they expect us all to just use the latest and hope nothing breaks?!

Re:Um... (4, Insightful)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943834)

Yeah, I look forward to the "this site is compliant with some of HTML standards and not others because they're too new. We can't really define that for you because there is no version, so best of luck to you" badges.

Re:Um... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944218)

Whee!

Time to break out those, "This page best viewed in..." badges again!

Re:Um... (4, Insightful)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944428)

It's still ok. I'll mail him a money order. Unfortunately it's for a higher amount, but he can just deposit it then send me the difference.

All will be well.

Re:Um... (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944440)

And this is a classic example of having two replies open and responding in the wrong textbox.

I either need way more or way less Monster right now.

Re:Um... (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944182)

It is possible that individual features of HTML will have versions instead of the entire standard. Maybe each tag will have a version? :P

Re:Um... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944330)

People will still need to differentiate between implementations of HTML that have different features...

This presumes that future versions of HTML from the point of adoption forward have backward-incompatible changes. The solution to that is to minimize backward-incompatible changes.

Slow Browsers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943772)

Wow, so now my browser has to interrogate every single element on a page to determine what's supported BEFORE going to plugins etc.

Yikes...

Re:Slow Browsers (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944274)

As a practical matter, that's pretty much what you have to do now. Modernizr and the like make it easier for you, but ultimately that's what they're doing. You can't really trust what each browser claims to support anyway.

Translation (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943810)

Microsoft got tired of people asking when they were going to fully support HTML 4....

Now everyone will be able to say "We support HTML" even though nobody fully supports all aspects of the spec. Just like today, only nobody will be able to point their finger at any sort of milestone that they missed, so companies that drag their heels in standards compliance end up looking better.

How is this a benefit again? It seems to me that we need smaller, more frequent milestones, not elimination of those milestones.

Re:Translation (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943906)

It is a benefit in the sense that it will terrorize people in using only the latest stuff coming from big companies because all the others will be playing catch up.

Oh you mean benefit for us? I dunno.

Re:Translation (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943916)

This sounds more like a standards body getting sick of people and developers asking when HTML5 standardization would finally be finished.

Re:Translation (1)

M3.14 (1616191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944062)

They will actually introduce infinite number of very small milestones. That's why there will be no number - who would want versions like 5.333333333333 (ad infinum) ?

Re:Translation (4, Funny)

OnlyJedi (709288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944492)

Well, if the version numbering converged to something interesting like pi (or e, or the golden ratio) I could see people wanting it.
Then again, that kind of system wouldn't be rational.

Living Standard? (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943824)

So, in the future it's impossible to figure out what browser supports what? Because, after all, browser support is dragging behind years even now. Or is that the very goal of Google? Make Chrome the de facto standard, and force everyone else to play the catch-up game?

Seriously, don't do this "living standard" crap. At the very least use minor version numbers to identify a given set of standards. Don't force me to guestimate how a web page I write today is going to behave in browsers 5 years from now; let me specify what behaviour I want.

Problem (5, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943832)

There will be no way to pressure browser developers to be compliant with "NGHTML 4.7" if we can't even talk about it because it lacks a name. It'll also be hard to enumerate features of releases, to decide what version of the standard we're talking about and have programmatic support for that, etc.

This eliminates most of the benefits of having standards to begin with.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944184)

There will be no way to pressure browser developers to be compliant with "NGHTML 4.7" if we can't even talk about it because it lacks a name.

It's all about inflection.

For example, Firefox supports HTML, but not HTML or HTML.

Fun with Names (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944472)

if we can't even talk about it because it lacks a name.

Hey, we've seen this before - no numbers, but we can have HTML Pro, HTML Extreme, HTML on Acid, HTML JC, etc.

Seriously though, if there is a written standard, no matter what they don't call it, people will label it. HTML 2012, or whatever, will be what was in effect as of January 1st 2012.

Maybe what they're trying to do here isn't to keep browser writers from having excuses for not keeping up, but for keeping the standards body from feeling like if they put out an update every 15 years they're earning their keep.

Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943836)

Version numbers are irrelevant because HTML is irrelevant to designers.
What matter are the relative version numbers of Dreamweaver, Firefox and IE.

And before someone tries to say, "yes, it'll matter because the back end is still HTML,"
NO, it won't matter, any more than internal guidelines for software design matter at
any particular company. And despite management statements to the contrary, they
truly don't matter even there, within the industry.

And yes, I'm insensitive. Grow a pair.

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (2)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943932)

yes, it'll matter because the back end is still HTML. And not everything that creates and renders HTML is dreamweaver, firefox or iexplorer. And while management practices do not matter, specifications and implementations DO matter. Most especially, for those that rely on accuracy. product comparisons, and compatibility.

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943996)

And not everything that creates and renders HTML is dreamweaver, firefox or iexplorer.

And they are irrelevant. IE & Firefox alone hold 74% of the browser share. Throw in Chrome and you have 86%. Pretty much anything else is safe to ignore and worthless to most people.

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944146)

Ignoring 14% of your customers is a pretty stupid move.

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944414)

You wrongly presume that the people in that 14% ARE potential customers. When on realizes that one hardly gets any customers from Safari or Opera the choice is pretty much easy to make. They don't matter.

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944562)

maybe there is a reason you don't get customers from those browsers.

like the page doesn't fucking work!

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944638)

You're still an idiot. I use Opera exclusively, except for the instances where I must get something done AND the site will not allow me to use Opera AND I don't have an alternative supplier of the service or product. Otherwise, if a site doesn't work in Opera, I find another source/site to accomplish my goals. I have Chrome, Firefox, and Konqueror available (in Linux) and Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer (in Windows), but if you don't want my business as an Opera user, I'll be happy not to use your services or purchase your product. Why should I fire up another browser just to buy from you when supporting Safari and Opera is pretty much dead easy?

The sites I develop get tested in all my available browsers and until it reaches a point where I find the display acceptable in each of those, then I'm not done working on the site. If my boss finds something unacceptably broken or screwy in any browser, it gets sent back to me to fix it asap. In my experience, the display is remarkably uniform between Opera, Firefox, and Safari, with generally only minor differences between the three. So, from my perspective, not supporting at least Opera and Safari is supreme laziness on your part, which is why I won't be bothered to fire up a different browser to do business with you.

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944258)

So, you're happy losing 14 visitors out of every 100 you would otherwise have had if you had not ignored the 14% of people using Safari, Opera, and the various other small browsers out there? Granted, 14 of 100 doesn't sound bad, until you scale it up and realize that you are giving up 14k of every 100k visitors. If even 10% of those 14k spent 50$, you're leaving 70k$ on the table just from those people. Now, consider that those people will scare off anyone else they know if your site comes up in conversation and the damage multiplies.

Your attitude is rather like saying you're going to ignore the blind because most of your visitors have sight. So fuck 'em because they're blind. This conveniently ignores the fact that some people will avoid doing business with companies that don't make at least a minimal effort to make reasonable accommodations for handicapped individuals. So, if 14% of your potential customer base is blind and you choose to ignore them, you can rest assured you will lose business from more than those 14% of your potential customer base.

Way to cut your nose to spite your face!

Re:Irrelevant information about irrelevant topic. (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944020)

It'll matter to web browsers, which will have to spend a lot more effort trying to figure out exactly how a page is supposed to be displayed, without version numbers.

So instead... (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943838)

So instead of versions, we'll have a big vector of flags, where each flag indicates whether or not a particular HTML feature is required, supported, etc.? And a given web page will work with a given browser only if their two flag vectors are compatible?

This is stupid. Standards exist for a reason.

Re:So instead... (2)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944312)

We'll have exactly what we have now. Browser vendors were already adding draft features into their product before the specification was finalized. Just look at how many browsers support HTML5 features, even though HTML5 does not exist as a standard yet.

Re:So instead... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944384)

we'll have a big vector of flags

No. There will be a /htmlcaps.xml in the root of every website, enumerating the features necessary to render it.

Re:So instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944496)

And it will be 6.2MB in size.

Privacy dies in this move (1)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944408)

I think the "vector of flags" idea has merit, but it introduces worse issues than those it solves. Consider privacy and user-tracking issues; this vector would make it trivial to uniquely identify users because it contains that much more information (see also the EFF's Panopticlick [eff.org] ).

We still need "milestones" which can be marked, even if they are years, quarters, or months instead of versions. In this manner, we can still determine compatibility without introducing millions of different combinations of flags.

Another approach is the way javascript already does this. If there is a chance a function or object isn't supported, test it first, e.g. if ( document.getElementById ) { } It shouldn't be too hard to do this for HTML properties in a similar manner, perhaps like if ( document.supportsElement("video") ) { } (like document.createElement() but returning a boolean instead of an element). The important piece here is that there is no array containing this information. You would have to construct it if you really wanted it, which makes it harder to observe minor differences in ways that browsers structure it.

Linked blog article is fluff with no insight (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943858)

Go straight to the source [whatwg.org] instead.

That link gives it away ... (1)

rjmx (233228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943954)

The subheading on that link seems particularly appropriate:

> Please leave your sense of logic at the door, thanks!

Sigh.

Re:Linked blog article is fluff with no insight (1)

franciscohs (1003004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944286)

It's interesting how around there are all praises, and around here are all rants. I wonder why's that... (I'm with the latter group, obviously)

Just like Chrome? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34943862)

Do they mean the browser Chrome? As in Google Chrome 8.0.552.237?
Is 8.0.552.237 not the version?

Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943866)

HTML5 is lacking in adoption, incompatible, slow etc.

And there is no need to further develop a bi-plane when you fly a jet already.

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943882)

Really? That's weird because I thought browsers were waring over who could get HTML 5 features out first, who had the most, and showing them off.

But I might be totally crazy.

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944084)

...The various Javascript APIs, web sockets, IndexedDB, SVG, etc, are not HTML 5.

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944344)

I never said they were...but the HTML APIs that allow the implementation of those things surely are part of the recommendation:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#apis

As well as the elements like , , and the semantic ones such as , , .

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944194)

It's a typical problem, the browsers battle it out first, then applications and sites tend to pop up. Which makes it a bit awkward at times.

From what I can tell, they're opting to keep the aspect of HTML which is more or less the most broken under the justification that they've always done it that way, regardless of the fact that HTML5 was mostly supposed to be changing that. A new set of standards that both modernized and theoretically was implemented by all the browsers.

It's more or less inevitable that what's going to end up happening is a rehash of the Netscape versus IE battle of the 90s and a return to fragmentation. It might not be intentional, but if the standards keep changing it's going to be a real challenge actually cruising the web.

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943898)

And what is this jet you speak of? Javascript, CSS, DOM? If these are jets, then someone put the turbines in backwards, pasted the wings on with glue sticks, and is using banana peels as fuel.

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (1)

ThatMegathronDude (1189203) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944326)

Well, yeah. Those features came first, then standards came behind to try to reduce the amount of extra work necessary to work around browswer weirdness.

Re:Internet/server backed "Apps" are the web 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944412)

Incorrect. There can't be a web 3.0 because there was never a 2.0, or a 1.0. The version system people apply to the web is bullshit, plain and simple.

Buzzword don't change that.

Shield (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943920)

I like the shield logo, it fits the whole Web 2.0 of bold and simplistic.

Reminds me of cell shading and Zelda: The Wind Waker for some reason.

Huh? (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943940)

Since when did Google become the keepers of the HTML spec?

I think a randomly changing feature-set sounds like a bad idea. HTML is supposed to be a standard, not something which just changes without any real control behind that.

This is like agile programming run amok -- let's expect the customer to have to upgrade to the latest nightly build. That'll work!

Re:Huh? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944214)

It's Stockholm syndrome. They're so used to the unreliable renderings that they're needing to create something which keeps that aspect of cruising the web.

Re:Huh? (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944248)

Browsers were already adding support for draft features as they happened. I believe his point is that there is no use in waiting until the spec is finalized; add the features they become available and let people start using them now.

Have to distinguish somehow! (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34943952)

IMHO, I think it's probably not a great move to go version-less, because there are some night-and-day differences between HTML preceding HTML5. I can see web 2.0 development and browser test support getting a bit messy going this route. But W3C they W3C said so. Whatever. I'm sure they'll spend much more time waffling over the logo than having any more version number discussions...

Re:Have to distinguish somehow! (1)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944186)

Maybe HTML will die on its own, on the hands of incompetency. Then hopefully a reasonable standard will arise. One that is not designed by committee.

Horrible Idea.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944050)

This is posibly one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Pages will ecome invalid at a steady rate and browsers will become prey to extreme amounts of tedious updates. A standard such as HTML asolutely NEEDS to be worked on in a system which uses version numbers as opposed to the "living" idea.

Their justification FAQ: (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944064)

Their justifications for the decision are here:

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F

Partially agree. Feature-control? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944144)

Instead of using stupid, monolithic versioning methods, why not just do feature-based parsing?

Instead of doctypes for HTML5, for example, you have something that states what FEATURES you are using, and it only parses based on that.
So, if you want to use canvas, audio and video, you state something like <DOCTYPE canvas,audio,video>
Not only is this more specific, it saves on having to load parsers for stuff you don't have on the page at all.
Current objects can be exploded from generic-doctype-version to discrete groups, such as visual markup (bold, italics, strike), formatting (pres, tables), media (img, embed, object) and so on.

Seriously, why hasn't this been done yet? It is a much more efficient system and only just barely adds a slight increase in difficulty in generating documents since you need to activate the features through the doctype identifier. (if you don't, it doesn't get parsed, period)
Obviously it won't make a difference to the amateur web developers, they barely care about doctypes as it is, who cares about them? They will just google why their sites aren't working and find 100+ blogs on "how to get my websites working".

Yes, it is going to require a lot of work, but it doesn't mean it will break any websites, only old browsers. (and, yet again, who cares, that's what they get)
Thoughts?

Great Idea! (1)

dantaylor08 (1931464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944158)

All we'll have to do is build a separate page for every browser that visits our sites! Wonderful idea! /sarcasm

I can't up-moderate, so i'll just say it (2)

BlakJak-ZL1VMF (256320) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944160)

+1 to everyone who thinks this is stupid. In particular given how significant HTML is to the web-as-we-know-it surely there must've been some consultation before making a call like this? With a cacaphony of "NO" coming through here (and very little, if any, support) one has to wonder....

Bad engineering (2, Insightful)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944162)

We are in the hands of morons. A constantly evolving standard is bad news for everybody except maybe a few companies that sell HTML development tools. Fast forward 10 years, and we will not be able to read half of the web, and will need 10 different browsers to see our usual choice of sites. There is a reason for versioning. Keeping up with a website will be a pain. I guess I should not complain, many people will have a job thanks to this.

Er, Why use Version Numbers At All? (5, Interesting)

swsuehr (612400) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944230)

I broke the cardinal rule and read TFA. From TFA:

"Hickson mentions that the group will be dropping the HTML5 name immediately, but it we have not received a confirmation that this will happen over at the W3C as well."

So WHATWG will no longer be using numbers? WHATWG can call it "Hullapuhjelpus" as far as I'm concerned as long as W3C still continues using version numbers. Version numbers provide excellent reference points to featuresets and are useful to implementers, developers, and end users alike.
From the WHATWG Blog:

"However, shortly after that we realised that the demand for new features in HTML remained high, and so we would have to continue maintaining HTML and adding features to it before we could call "HTML5" complete, and as a result we moved to a new development model, where the technology is not versioned and instead we just have a living document that defines the technology as it evolves."

Because there's demand for new features you no longer want to use a numbering scheme? Many standards are evolving. Why not just increment the minor version when new features are added? HTML version 5.1 added this cool thing, 5.2 this cool thing, etc.

If we're dumping version numbers then why bother calling it Internet Explorer 6, 7, 8, and 9? Why not just call it "Internet Explorer"? We all know that each of those versions render pages the same, right? Hmm. I just realized that I invoked Internet Explorer in a discussion about standards. Mea Culpa.

How does removing the version number help the people who need to implement and work with the standard?

Please rollback (1)

MrJones (4691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944240)

bad choice, please rollback to html5. Then you can call it html5.1, html5.1.1, etc

It just does not make any sense to me to scrub the version number of an open specification.

Is this the new Google? Don't like it

Strange (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944294)

Funny distribution of approval on the linked blog's comments there (I hope not to have violated the rule of not RTFA I just read the comments there I swear).
First 10 comments, 2 negative. Last 10 (around n.50 as I write) 9 negative.

Shocking... (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944302)

Color me "not surprise". Engineers, much like artists, have a hard time knowing when something is done and want to "tweak and tweak" everything to death.

Solution? Rather than *finish* something, just remove the versions! It'll be in development for perpetuity - an engineer's dream come true.

HTML5 isn't supposed to be finalized until 2021 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944348)

Yes, 2021, this is a complete non-issue. The standard isn't terribly useful in the near term and no one will give a crap by then (as well, Google doesn't get to decide this).

Bad interpretation (4, Informative)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944512)

What was said is that the moving spec in development is now called HTML, when a snapshot is taken it will be called HTML5, next HTMLX.X.X or any other name. The WHATWG spec is not a finalized document, HTML5 will be snapshoted sometime

Welcome to HTML. The first rule of HTML is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944542)

Welcome to HTML. The first rule of HTML is: you do not talk about HTML. The second rule of HTML is: you DO NOT talk about HTML! Third rule of HTML: if someone yells "standards!", goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.

If no numbers, at least snapshots (1)

jinushaun (397145) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944566)

Ok, I understand the whole "living document" reason, but as developers, we're gonna need at the very least a snapshot of HTML from time to time. We need milestones/pseudo-versions. Otherwise, we're going back to the wild west days of IE4 and Netscape where the internet was a broken mess of incompatible websites each targeting a specific browser, instead of a common version of HTML.

Thanks for nothing, W3C. I guess HTML "5" become too much of a hot topic.

Chrome version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944578)

But Chrome does have version numbers. The releases have 3 _sub_version numbers (n.x.y.z)

HTML exercise 101 (0)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944582)

<table major-version = 5 minor-version = 453 friendly-name = marshmallow><tbody><tr major-version = 4 minor-version =280><td major-version = 4 minor-version = 278>Hello world</td></tr></tbody></table>

<---this table won't display in any browser not updated to marshmallow level-->

No, it won't be as hard as that, it'll all happen in the css.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about html, but you noticed that already.

Prince? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34944606)

The artist formerly known as ... I mean, the standard formerly known as HTML5

A bit like Chrome? (1)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | more than 3 years ago | (#34944614)

But I'm running chrome 8.0.552.237 so clearly chrome is numbered, they don't need to call it anything else though as its automatically updated.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...