Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: open
- The HTML specification will henceforth just be known as "HTML", with the URL [whatwg.org...] (We will also continue to maintain the Web Applications 1.0 specification that contains HTML and a number of related APIs like Web Storage, Web Workers, and Server-Sent Events.)
- The WHATWG HTML spec can now be considered a "living standard". It's more mature than any version of the HTML specification to date, so it made no sense for us to keep referring to it as merely a draft. We will no longer be following the "snapshot" model of spec development, with the occasional "call for comments", "call for implementations", and so forth.
The purpose of version numbers is more or less the same as standards themselves - to provide a target for developers to work to.
No browser ever implemented all of HTML4... They all picked and chose the bits they thought were useful.
[edited by: mattur at 2:10 am (utc) on Jan 24, 2011]
There will be uniform error recovery recommendations.Again, this doesn't scream smart to me, it screams dumb - yes dumb, I really do mean it. Instead of worrying about uniform error recovery they should suggest browsers report errors - that way they might actually get fixed!
it's just changing the standards process to more accurately reflect what actually happens in reality.Alternatively, it's just letting lazy development teams off the hook and handing them a dirty great excuse to be complacent.
We don't do this with other languages so why should we do it with HTML?
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.
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.
joined:Nov 11, 2000
W3C Introduces an HTML5 Logo
18 January 2011
W3C unveiled today an HTML5 logo, a striking visual identity for the open web platform. W3C encourages early adopters to use HTML5 and to provide feedback to the W3C HTML Working Group as part of the standardization process....
Take Control ó Your Web, Your Logo
An HTML5 Logo
It stands strong and true, resilient and universal as the markup you write. It shines as bright and as bold as the forward-thinking, dedicated web developers you are. It's the standard's standard, a pennant for progress. And it certainly doesn't use tables for layout.
We present an HTML5 logo.
The real world issued a wake-up call.
Instead of worrying about uniform error recovery they should suggest browsers report errors - that way they might actually get fixed!
Thank you for making browsers even less uniform than before...
You and I might like this idea, but the general public has no interest in it.
The idea that standardizing the handling of HTML errors is a good thing is plainly nuts...
Why can you not define symbolic constants something like #define myColor = purple in CSS...
"IT's coming".. hopefully not as a x-browser rec though. Browser specific applications maybe, or some sort of preprocessor/API - @kaled, CSS Variables & related [webmasterworld.com]. post #2 leads to an older thread where it was discussed as it pertains to the CSS specs. The technology to do this already exists.</OT>
joined:Nov 11, 2000
@Robert Charlton: not sure if that's what you were referring to with your "civil war", perhaps it was just the military style of the logo hehe but I was initially confused too.
Badge Builder 5000
You're seconds away from your own stunning, customized badge. Fire up the Badge Builder 5000.
What the tech?
Build a logo that shows off what you use.
However, both HTML and CSS have suffered very badly from having idiots in charge of standards - for instance, why can you not define symbolic constants something like #define myColor = purple in CSS. This would be useful and trivially simple and has doubtless been proposed many times but some dumbo somewhere has said "No, no, no, that would sacrilege for (some pathetic reason)".