swa66 - 12:48 am on Jan 26, 2011 (gmt 0)
Browsers implement *features* individually, as an ongoing process. Browsers do not implement whole *specifications* in one go. Just because a feature is in a spec does not mean, and never has meant, it is ready to be used by authors.
Agreed and that's what makes it SAD.
A standard should state if you want to say your browser supports HTML5, you MUST do this, SHOULD do that, MAY do this, SHOULD NOT do that, and MUST NOT do that.
And then make the gray area as small as possible.
But alas the browser makers never got along, and letting them have a say over what is in the standard as a group will never solve it. Time for the people to take back the power to decide what's in the standard and kick the corporations out of the process.
So this direction is one that browser makers can and will move forward with and support, without placing intense barriers in the way of the average web author.
They place one gigantic hurdle: dumbing it down. Not what I was looking for -at all.
I was wondering if I should start to play with xhtml5. I think this is clear to me (x)html5 is dead (killed by the browser crafters). So, since they claim to process anything and everything -basically no guarantees-, I'll stick with xhtml1.0 (strict where possible, transitional if I have to).
Sure we can call it html and css in day to day language, but the files we create are in a specific version of the language, just like your php script is intended for a specific version, and just look at the doc it'll say a given functionality was added in version X and might be deprecated in version Y, or even removed in version Z.