Re-inventing HTML

What's the latest?

[ronin]

Does anyone here follow this sort of thing?

I caught TBL's announcement last autumn but haven't heard anything since.

When can we get past this horrible, branched mess and start using clean, spare, easy-to-formulate HTML 5 and CSS 3?

At any point in this lifetime?

[pageoneresults]

I don't see much discussion about HTML 5 (Web Applications 1.0 [whatwg.org]).

Note: The above document weighs in just over 1.5MB, may act funny for some. My IE7 doesn't like scrolling that document. ;)

And, I don't see any reference to HTML 5 on the official HTML Markup page...

W3C HyperText Markup Language (HTML) Home Page
[w3.org...]

I see a stronger push for XHTML™ 2.0.

A general purpose markup language without presentation elements, XHTML 2 is designed for representing documents for a wide range of purposes across the Web.

XHTML™ 2.0 W3C Working Draft 26 July 2006
[w3.org...]

P.S. There is a bit of controversy out there in regards to XHTML and the validity of the W3C in moving forward with standards. It appears we have working groups clashing at the moment.

[pageoneresults]

I'll have to admit that I haven't been following the Working Groups progress these past 12-18 months. I didn't realize there were as many issues as there are. They've also got some internal political issues to deal with. Lots of bickering amongst the top decision makers from both Working Groups.

[mattur]

There's lots going on at the WHAT-WG, but it's rather dispersed, mainly on the mailing list and across various blogs, and quite hard to get a handle on. WHAT-WG have a blog, but to really get a grasp of WHAT's going on you have to dive in to the (inevitably fairly technical) discussions. I'm very positive about HTML5's future.

At the w3c, it looks like Microsoft's Chris Wilson "Platform Architect for IE" will be the new HTML working group's chair. Some think this is bad and rewards MS for its past behaviour. I think he's possibly the ideal choice. For HTML5 to leave the drawing board and enter the RW requires MS involvement. Chris Wilson seems to "get it" and he is the antithesis of the previous WG's academia-focused chair. Increased transparency in the w3c's processes would help us all assess how effective he is.

The clashing of WG's is over [webmasterworld.com] - HTML5 will be "available" in HTML and XHTML, similar to HTML4.01 and XHTML1. Makes sense: XML serialisation available if you need it.

I think the pushing of XHTML2 intead of HTML5 on the w3c site is more to do with the site being out of date, rather than being a statement of intent, though XHTML2 will be taken forward by a separate WG. I see this as face-saving rather than reflective of any RW demand for XHTML2. It's going to wither on the vine.

When? 2008 - wildly optimistic guess :)

[iamlost]

HTML Working Group Charter [w3.org]

Milestones:
First Working Draft: Feb 2007
Last Call Working Draft: Nov 2007
Candidate Recommendation: Feb 2008
Proposed Recommendation: Sep 2008
Recommendation: Dec 2008
End Date: Dec 2010

This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML specification, which includes the series of specifications previously published as XHTML version 1. Both XML and 'classic HTML' syntaxes will be produced.

There is no formal relationships to groups outside the W3C.

However, the Working Group will attempt to liaise with external groups, such as the WHAT WG, and with the content developer community.

Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, etc.) will be available from the HTML Working Group home page.

I look forward to seeing that home page and following the process.

[pageoneresults]

Note: The above document weighs in just over 1.5MB, may act funny for some. My IE7 doesn't like scrolling that document. ;)

Sorry, don't mean to take this off topic but I hope someone from WHAT WG is reading this as they make it impossible to contact anyone about problems with their site.

They are missing the closing </head> tag on the above link. They also fail validation for other issues.

[whatwg.org...]

Okay, back to the topic at hand, sorry ronin. It just bugs me to see the authorities on html with errors in their own backyard, expecially ones that create issues with the browsing experience. Its bad enough they are throwing a 1.5MB page at you...

[encyclo]

<OT>

They are missing the closing </head> tag on the above link. They also fail validation for other issues.

You're a hard taskmaster p1r, a 1.5Mb file and only seven minor errors, all easily corrected. :) They actually don't fail at all for the missing

</head>

as it's an optional tag in HTML. ;)

</OT>

The idea of WHAT-WG was to have their work submitted and approved by the W3C, the objective of the W3C HTML working group is to advance HTML development, and their only current model is coming from WHAT-WG, so convergence should happen if politics don't get too in the way.

As things stand in early 2007, nothing in WHAT-WG's HTML5 is production-ready, and no-one else has any proposals - so don't hold your breath for a new HTML version in the short-term. The creation of the HTML working group does, however, reassure as to the pertinence of developing in HTML 4.01 whilst the development process continues.