W3C Says HTML5 Is Complete

[engine]

There had to be a line drawn somewhere, and now it's here: W3C passes HTML5 to the staus, as it calls it, "recommendation."

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) published a Recommendation of HTML5, the fifth major revision of the format used to build Web pages and applications, and the cornerstone of the Open Web Platform. For application developers and industry, HTML5 represents a set of features that people will be able to rely on for years to come. HTML5 is now supported on a wide variety of devices, lowering the cost of creating rich applications to reach users everywhere.

"Today we think nothing of watching video and audio natively in the browser, and nothing of running a browser on a phone," said Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director. "We expect to be able to share photos, shop, read the news, and look up information anywhere, on any device. Though they remain invisible to most users, HTML5 and the Open Web Platform are driving these growing user expectations."W3C Says HTML5 Is Complete [w3.org]

More information from W3C CEO, Jeff Jaffe is here.
[w3.org...]

Bringing HTML5 to the status of W3C Recommendation (in October 2014) is a defining moment in the development of the Open Web Platform (OWP), a set of technologies for developing distributed applications with the greatest interoperability in history. This year is also the 25th anniversary of the Web and 20th anniversary of W3C, making this an even more meaningful time to engage with the community about the Next Big Thing for the Web Platform.

My starting point for this discussion is that, now that HTML5 is done, W3C should focus on strengthening the parts of the Open Web Platform that developers most urgently need for success. I call this push for developers “Application Foundations.”

[keyplyr]

When recently planning a responsive mobile version of a site with international traffic, I first considered 5 to maintain currency with new phones/tablets. Upon further research I ended up putting 5 on hold, opting to stay with 4.1 transitional. I'll take another look at 5 support in a year.

[RedBar]

I'll take another look at 5 support in a year.

I've been running 5 on half a dozen sites for more than a year now and the sooner I get all sites converted to it the better. Once learnt it is so much easier however, of course, it will depend just how many pages one has to do!

[lucy24]

Decisions, decisions. Leave everything at 4.01 and ignore validator yapping at the occasional <wbr> -- or change to the bare "HTML" and similarly ignore yapping at every occurrence of "name"? *

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Gosh, I'm glad I got out of ebooks. It would become increasingly infuriating to have to backscale from 5 to 4 over the next five or ten years, as we currently have to do with CSS.


* Goofy but true: The main reason I still use "name" at all-- other than for groups, duh-- is that that's what SubEthaEdit uses for internal navigation on <a> elements :)

[keyplyr]

I've been running 5 on half a dozen sites for more than a year now and the sooner I get all sites converted to it the better. Once learnt it is so much easier however, of course, it will depend just how many pages one has to do!

It's not an issue of learning the syntax, as I said it is about support. Lots of people still using archaic browsers in USA, and even more so in South America, Europe and the East. So if a site has a significant international following, or if the content targets an older age group (who are less likely to update to current browser builds) it may be prudent to wait a while with HTML 5 IMO.

Leave everything at 4.01 and ignore validator yapping at the occasional <wbr>

All my sites validate without error, always have. I would not put a site online if it didn't validate. Can't depend on browser rendering if the code isn't standards compliant... heck ya can't count on it 100% even if it is :)

[seoskunk]

Thats great news I'm off to invent html 6 where <br> requires <br /> again we are not allowed to say <b> and <script> must include the language.....

HTMl5 became just html in the end so how the #*$! is it complete?

Surely its an evolving language

[lucy24]

where <br> requires <br /> again

For that you'll have to wait for XHTML 2, which I'm sure is in the works :(

[vivalasvegas]

This year is also the 25th anniversary of the Web

500 years from now we'll be considered Web pioneers. 25 years is just such a short period of time. Not related to this thread really, it just struck me that likely most people here are older than the Web itself.

[RedBar]

Lots of people still using archaic browsers in USA, and even more so in South America, Europe and the East

Not according to my browser stats and smart phones are already 5 compliant with billions enabled.

[cnet.com...]

[Fotiman]

Lots of people still using archaic browsers

I guess it depends on your definition of "Lots". According to gs.statscounter.com, it's at most 5%, and that's being generous (I didn't bother weeding out all of the lesser known browsers that are actually modern).

But also, HTML5 is backwards compatible with those older browsers if you don't use the newer elements like video, audio, etc., so there's no advantage to not using HTML5.

[lucy24]

What counts as "archaic"? A few days ago for unrelated reasons* I looked up MSIE versions in selected IP ranges. Turns out I haven't seen a legitimate MSIE 6 in at least a year-- couldn't find a 5 at all-- and that's good enough for me.

My browser of choice is still Camino, whose UA string includes the fatal line "like Firefox 3.6". It doesn't bat an eye at most HTML5 statements.

Besides, html and css are both meant to be forgiving. Even MSIE will deal with unfamiliar elements by just ignoring them, so as long as your material "degrades gracefully" you should be fine.


* Font substitution. MSIE 7 (!!) was the first to do it. I generally block 5 and 6, with an exemption for certain IP ranges to allow for government offices.

[Fotiman]

I generally block 5 and 6, with an exemption for certain IP ranges to allow for government offices.

Booo! Blocking ANY browser is just wrong, IMO. Let them get a broken experience... anyone using those browsers probably has to.

[keyplyr]

guess it depends on your definition of "Lots". According to gs.statscounter.com, it's at most 5%...

Don't know what "gs.statscounter.com" has to do with anything, when it come my business, I use my server stats not someone else's.

I haven't crunched the numbers on older browsers but even using 5%, for a small 100k daily visitor site, that would be 5k daily visitor loss of potential revenue. IMO quite a potential loss and one I'm not willing to make right now.

I agree that most elements of HTML 5 work with older browsers, and that most browsers are forgiving somewhat (just look at all the abysmal web site mark-ups out there) but when a person has their wallet in their hand deciding whether to enter their credit card number, even the smallest anomaly can be enough to scare them off.

Anyway, this is once again another choice each webmaster must make. There is usually collateral damage with progress, just depend how much you're willing to pay for it.

[lucy24]

Let them get a broken experience...

Before instituting any version-based block, I fine-tooth-comb logs to verify that no human is still using this browser. UA-based lockouts are intended purely for robots sending patently bogus User-Agent strings. That's why I poke holes for some IP ranges. If you're in the office of an impoverished government, it is obviously out of your power to upgrade your browser, no matter how virulently you hate MSIE 6.

I once met a "Your browser is too old" page ... while using Safari 6. If I had made note of the domain name I would publish it far and wide, because this kind of ### is inexcusable. (Safari auto-updates-- but it's constrained by your OS.) No, I did not return to the site in a different browser. I only do that if I want to watch a movie, which Camino genuinely can't do.

[Fotiman]

Ok, lucy, you are redeemed. :)

[RedBar]

Did you see Google's AdSense Insider October 2014 stats?

Did you know:
27%
The percentage of the world’s population with smartphones.

Source: Credit Suisse Global Equity Themes report, September 2014.

52%
The projected percentage of the world’s population with smartphones in 2017.

Source: Credit Suisse Global Equity Themes report, September 2014.

[keyplyr]

I get that newsletter also, but not sure why you posted the Adsense predictions about smart phone proliferation here. All late html versions can be made responsive mobile design, not just html 5.

[mattur]

Note that when the W3C CEO says "HTML5 is done" he's being somewhat economical with the truth - this is mainly a marketing exercise, with the added benefit of invoking the W3C's patent protection policy. The W3C resolved to publish a version "HTML5" in 2014 - no matter what - and pretty openly changed its REC criteria to do so.

There are areas of the spec that do not have anywhere near enough tests to determine interoperability. So it's impossible for the spec to have met the 2 independent implementations test theoretically required by the W3C Process. In addition there are areas of the spec which are vague, self-contradictory, currently changing or known not to be implemented.

For example, see this excerpt from the HTML5 spec that according to the W3C CEO "is done":

This section describes a security model that is underdefined, imperfect, and does not match implementations. Work is ongoing to attempt to resolve this, but in the meantime, please do not rely on this section for precision.

[w3.org...]

No one should use the W3C HTML5 REC as a slow version of caniuse.com. Even if the W3C had followed its process, it would still only require *2* independent interoperable implementations, which obviously isn't enough to determine whether a feature is well-supported enough to use on commercial websites.

Note also this is a snapshot from over a year ago, and many bugs and corrections have been made since then. This snapshot is for patent lawyers, not web developers. No browser will ever fully support this "HTML5" spec. Implementing a year old version of the spec would bake-in bugs that have been fixed in the latest version of the spec.

Here's Mozilla's W3C's response to the "HTML5" call for review:

We support publication as a Recommendation although there are surely many details in the specification that are wrong, either because the specification disagrees with itself or because it disagrees with what is needed to make an implementation that can suceed in the market. The level of coverage in the test suite is not enough to avoid that. These errors will be found over time.

Read the whole thing: [lists.mozilla.org...]

Web developers should continue to refer to the WHATWG HTML standard for how stuff is theoretically supposed to be implemented, as this is what browser implementers are generally using. For real-world browser support information, developers should continue to refer to MDN or caniuse.com.