HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#1

Post by robin_reala » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:23 AM UTC

HTML 5.2 Recommendation
w3.org

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#2

Post by zaarn » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:39 AM UTC

For the lazy and/or those unable find the link in the massively oversized index; [0] Changes listed here

[0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#3

Post by taspeotis » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:42 AM UTC

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#4

Post by kryptiskt » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:46 AM UTC

"Although we have asked them to stop doing so, the W3C also republishes some parts of this specification as separate documents."

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#5

Post by planxty » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:54 AM UTC

taspeotis wrote: post #3

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

Thanks!

All I want for Christmas is an obvious link in the top of every W3C document showing me what's new.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#6

Post by rwmj » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:55 AM UTC

taspeotis wrote: post #3

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

For those who have not been paying attention for a decade, what's the relationship between this revision and WHATWG?

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#7

Post by vog » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 11:04 AM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #6

taspeotis wrote: post #3

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

For those who have not been paying attention for a decade, what's the relationship between this revision and WHATWG?

I hope this doesn't sound too snarky, but as far as I know, the WHATWG standard is live, consistent and always up to date (including corrections), while the W3C recommendations are outdated snapshots of the WHATWG standard, which are labeled by arbitrary version numbers instead of the snapshot timestamp, for whatever reason.

EDIT: Apparently even that description was too charitable towards the W3C (see gsnedders comments).

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#8

Post by itsbits » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 11:08 AM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #2

For the lazy and/or those unable find the link in the massively oversized index; [0] Changes listed here [0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

thght noreferrer value was already a standard.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#9

Post by dmitriid » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 11:14 AM UTC

Yeah. Only it's possibly WHATWG's proposal. Copied over with names changed and multiple errors here and there.

See the full story here: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_...

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#10

Post by ChrisSD » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 11:14 AM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #6

taspeotis wrote: post #3

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html#changes

For those who have not been paying attention for a decade, what's the relationship between this revision and WHATWG?

The WHATWG is for browser vendors. It's in a constant state of flux as new changes get proposed and those proposals get changed through implementation.

The W3C is for web authors. It presents a more stable recommendation and provides advice (based on research) for authors.