SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 87

Thread: HTML5 Renamed!

  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I'd go with FRED. But it needs to stand for something. Fashionable Really Excellent Document is my suggestion.
    To reduce confusion, we should just call it Bruce.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

  2. #27
    Sploghm bronze trophy Victorinox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    749
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    To reduce confusion, we should just call it Bruce.
    And to unite the concepts:

    Bruce Lawson on The Zen of HTML

    Well worth watching for those of us who haven't been keeping up.

  3. #28
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,799
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    If IE9 isn't going to get ported to Windows XP, you have a good 10 year wait for IE8 to die.
    Yes but at the current rate of progress Fred (or HTML5 as it used to be known) is at least 15 years away from becoming a standard - or at least it was before the name change as now with it bening less clearly defined as to what exactly it is supposed to be you can probably add a lot more years onto that.

    Anyway since you need all browsers to actually support the new standard before it will be really usable it will take time after it becomes a standard for it to become useful. That means that since IE9 doesn't fully support the new standard which doesn't yet exist that IE9 will also be long gone before the new standard becomes relevant - by which time many will have switched to XHTML and HTML itself will be close to dying out.

    With XHTML only needing IE8 to die out while the new Fred (or HTML5 or whatever you want to call it) will also require IE9 and possibly IE15 to die out before it will be usable it is fairly obvious which of the standards will be usable first.

    Of course the other consideration is that what they are actually suggesting with HTML - to modularise the extra parts so that they can be progressively implemented - is what XHTML was created in order to handle in the first place. You simply combine the doctypes for the part of the language your page expects to use and that defines the standard that the page is expected to comply with. Of course it would be easier if the browsers were to actually use the doctyle to define how they interpret the tags rather than using their own internal equivalent.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  4. #29
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mcd View Post
    From the marketing standpoint, it makes sense to drop it. From the technical standpoint, you need to recognize the limitations of browsers in relation to the version of HTML and CSS you are using, so it's important to retain the version numbering.
    Yes and no. Because of the drip-feed nature of new HTML and CSS features, there are a lot of browsers of various colours and flavours that support some features within a standard but not all of them. They might support many but not all features of CSS2, and a few features of CSS3. They might support some features of HTML5 but not others. To that extent, it is of limited use to say that the browser only supports HTML4.01 and CSS2, because it does more than that. It is more useful to developers to know which features each browser version supports.

  5. #30
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,165
    Mentioned
    453 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    It is more useful to developers to know which features each browser version supports.
    That seems the crux of it to me. We tend not to ask if IE does or doesn't support CSS2, because you could say yes or no to that. We really talk about what aspects/features of CSS IE supports, and we will probably end up doing the same with HTML. One supports canvas, another doesn't, for example …

  6. #31
    SitePoint Evangelist Karpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fred it is.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    170
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, you guys really have so much time to discuss about this uninteresting html version-ing topic? The current browsers from the past till now supports HTML and guess what?? The new modern browsers will support....HTML!
    I Dunno LOL ―\(°_o)/―

  8. #33
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,799
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Most people are still using HTML 3.2 (even though many of them try to pretend that they are transitioning to HTML 4) so whatever the next version of HTML is called will not matter. What is important is knowing what particular HTML tags and attributes a particular browser supports and that is what the version numbering was for - the original WWW browser supports HTML but doesn't understand many of the tags used today.

    It is unfortunate that they are now trying to create a version of HTML along the same lines as had already been created with XHTML 2 - a modular approach to adding new features to the language.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  9. #34
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will also go with Fred.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is a freaking joke. I will wait till XHTML 2.0 is released.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy TomB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    989
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Wasn't XHTML2 dropped in favour of HTML5?

  12. #37
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TomB View Post
    Wasn't XHTML2 dropped in favour of HTML5?
    So I hear, which is a huge mistake. What was the point of having XHTML 1.0? Just to drop XHTML all-together years later? The W3C is filled with a bunch of idiots.

  13. #38
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,165
    Mentioned
    453 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPatriot View Post
    So I hear, which is a huge mistake. What was the point of having XHTML 1.0? Just to drop XHTML all-together years later? The W3C is filled with a bunch of idiots.
    Maybe it was too strict, or maybe it was IE's fault. But felgall's comments above are interesting too.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that this change is an unneccessary waste of time both for the group and the users

  15. #40
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPatriot View Post
    So I hear, which is a huge mistake. What was the point of having XHTML 1.0? Just to drop XHTML all-together years later? The W3C is filled with a bunch of idiots.
    XHTML hasn't been dropped ... XHTML5 is being developed in parallel with HTML5, and uses the same code elements but reformulated to be XML compatible.

    The reason that XHTML 2 has been dropped is because it was a joke. It was completely incompatible with any other version of (X)HTML, so developers – authors and software providers – would have had a much bigger learning curve. By using the same feature base and language as the latest version of HTML, XHTML5 stands a much better chance of adoption, because it doesn't require anything dramatically different. Compare that with the complete language fork that XHTML2 would have given us, and it's clear why XHTML2 was never going anywhere other than in the bin.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Only WHATWG have dropped the '5' - for those who like their versioning and like their HTML to be W3C recommendation, W3C will still be calling this particular snapshot 'HTML5' (they have a logo and everything)

    But really, it changes nothing. WHATWG have always considered HTML to be living. The working group will work on improving HTML until W3C are happy enough to publish it as a snapshot - and then they'll work on it some more, and a bit down the line HTML6 will be published

    It shouldn't breed "best viewed in..." messages (and neither should CSS3) as long as you use progressive enhancement, which is just good practice anyway

  17. #42
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Brighton, UK
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well I for one, like having a new name for things. I like shiny, I like new, I like html5. Dumb reason I know.

    There are good arguments either way. Considering the way HTML evolves slowly over multiple streams simultaneously, it sort of doesn't make sense to give it a version number in the same way a product can be versioned.

    It does seem to me to keep us all in the same ballpark though, and it gives us a convenient way to talk about things and communicate where we are and what's possible.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Evangelist Karpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    The reason that XHTML 2 has been dropped is because it was a joke. It was completely incompatible with any other version of (X)HTML, so developers – authors and software providers – would have had a much bigger learning curve. By using the same feature base and language as the latest version of HTML, XHTML5 stands a much better chance of adoption, because it doesn't require anything dramatically different. Compare that with the complete language fork that XHTML2 would have given us, and it's clear why XHTML2 was never going anywhere other than in the bin.
    I see it quite the other way - XHTML2 was the best thing for the progression of the language and web standards overall, and it's HTML5 (Fred) that is the total joke. And I know I'm not alone in that view. Just sayin'.

  19. #44
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,799
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Karpie View Post
    XHTML2 was the best thing for the progression of the language and web standards overall, and it's HTML5 (Fred) that is the total joke
    XHTML 2 already had all of the extedibility that they are now talking about with HTML5 (Fred).

    Also XHTML2 is a logical progression from XHTML 1.0 and with IE9 now supporting XHTML there will soon (within 10 years) be no reason for professionals to not use XHTML leaving HTML for those who are at the ameteur end of the spectrum who probably don't care about standards anyway.

    Perhaps it would be more useful for someone to develop a standard for the extra tags in the proposal that actually make sense to have that can be used as an extension to XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1. That would be able to be implemented as a proper standard at least as quickly as the new HTML and would at least still be relevant when it was finished.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  20. #45
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,165
    Mentioned
    453 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    leaving HTML for those who are at the ameteur end of the spectrum who probably don't care about standards anyway.
    Heh heh, like Tommy Olsson? I was weaned on XHTML, so the stricter rules are in my blood, but I prefer HTML anyhow, as it seems cleaner to me … at least as long as we have to serve up sites as text/html (I hate all that /> stuff, not to mention that yucky CDATA stuff too). I don't see why those using 4.01 are assumed to be amateurs.

  21. #46
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,799
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Heh heh, like Tommy Olsson? I was weaned on XHTML, so the stricter rules are in my blood, but I prefer HTML anyhow, as it seems cleaner to me … at least as long as we have to serve up sites as text/html (I hate all that /> stuff, not to mention that yucky CDATA stuff too). I don't see why those using 4.01 are assumed to be amateurs.
    My comment was with regard to the time in the future once IE8 is dead and XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 actually work as they were intended served as XHTML and we get all of the real benefits it is meant to provide (and you can code <img/> or <img></img> and they both work the same).

    I wasn't trying to suggest people using HTML 4.01 now are ameteurs since that is still the latest standard that works (unless you ignore IE8- which isn't practical with the current market share).
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  22. #47
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    The reason Tommy choose HTML 4.01 for several production sites was to do with not being able to guarantee well-formedness. For example draconian halting on errors; not because he dislikes XHTML because he does love XHTML. He HATES the majority of HTML5! (Fred).

  23. #48
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Also XHTML2 is a logical progression from XHTML 1.0 and with IE9 now supporting XHTML there will soon (within 10 years) be no reason for professionals to not use XHTML leaving HTML for those who are at the ameteur end of the spectrum who probably don't care about standards anyway.
    Nor will there be any good reason for the most web designers to use XHTML instead of HTML. Even when browsers that support XHTML are widespread, for the majority of people who won't be using the extended features that require XML, there will still be no advantage to using it. Labelling people who prefer the logical and more elegant markup format of HTML as amateurs who don't care about standards is neither helpful nor fair.

  24. #49
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Also XHTML2 is a logical progression from XHTML 1.0 and with IE9 now supporting XHTML there will soon (within 10 years) be no reason for professionals to not use XHTML leaving HTML for those who are at the ameteur end of the spectrum who probably don't care about standards anyway.
    I write HTML using XHTML syntax, and I care about standards. What does that make me?

    Can anyone tell me how XHTML is better, because I'm getting confused here. I always thought HTML was better because it was less strict and less likely to simply not work when a XHTML compliant browser reads a site that uses a bad wysiwyg editor...

  25. #50
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,799
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    Even when browsers that support XHTML are widespread, for the majority of people who won't be using the extended features
    So if the extendability option of XHTML is no something that many people will use then why is HTML5 (by whatever name) being reorganised in order to provide that exact same feature. The whole point in their renaming HTML5 to HTML is so as to add extendibility into HTML - which is what XHTML already has.

    WHY ARE THEY REINVENTING THE WHEEL if hardly anyone is going to use wheels? Surely the fact that they have opted to restructure HTML that way indicates that the extendibility that XHTML already provides (and which will be usable through XHTML long before it is through HTML) is a wanted feature. That being the case then surely people will switch to using XHTML in order to gain that extra functionality rather than waiting the extra years for it to be added into HTML.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •