Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTML 5.2 Recommendation

w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#111

Post by floatboth »

frik wrote: post #104
masswerk wrote: post #60

Hm – I'm not too happy to see most of the original HTML-elements marked "not conforming" and "must not be used", thus preparing for browsers to eventually drop the support. There are still lots of web-sites and valuable information stored and archived in this format. Back in the day, it was thought that basic HTML was a format to last. Who is going to update these documents in order to make them conforming to future…

What's wrong with W3C again? Are we on the same train we were with the ill-fated XHTML 1 strict and XHTML 2. Anyway what's going on anyway with Google+Microsoft+Apple+W3C, why is there such a big push to HTTPS and HTTP/2, and declaring old HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1 and HTTPS/1 and HTML5.0 as legacy!? And why is Mail still sent in plain text completely insecure, and no adoption hype to support SMIME/etc? It is beyond fishy.…

W3C has absolutely nothing to do with mail, they never touched anything mail related.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

bringtheaction wrote: post #53

Wasn't HTML 5 supposed to be the last explicit version and then it would be a living standard without changing the version number?

No, WHATWG dropped numbers in favor of the “living standard”, but W3C continued to issue numbered HTML version standards.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#114

Post by dragonwriter »

ChrisSD wrote: post #31
oblio wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point here is not about the legality but more about the ethics of doing so, in this case.

It just amuses me that they're effectively saying that anyone can fork this for any reason... except for the W3C.

No, they are saying anyone is allowed to fork this for any reason, but we’d really prefer the W3C didn't fork this for the reason that they are, because it's confusing and counterproductive.

Whether someone should be permitted to do something is a different issue than whether they should actually do it.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

rhencke wrote: post #95
exabrial wrote: post #94

I really wish we'd "simplify" the HTML spec. The "pave the cow paths" approach to allow non-closed tags and mix of various syntaxes has lead to an explosion of complexity. That has regressed into terrible performance and memory hungry parsers.

This was done once - it was called XHTML. It was, effectively, just HTML in XML form. Tags had a single syntax (no implicitly self-closing tags). Documents were required to be well-formed, syntactically, or they would not display. It did not win.

It also didn't lose, since WHATWG HTML retains an XML syntax (no longer formally called XHTML, But it's the evolution of the same thing.)

There are still use cases for the XML syntax.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#116

Post by CaptSpify »

lewisflude wrote: post #85
jlebrech wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't make them

Where would you draw the line between a "website" and a "web app", would you like to see JS die entirely? Would you like the web to be non-interactive. Genuinely interested.

Not OP, but I would like to see JS on the web die entirely. Executing code without review just by clicking on a link? no thanks.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#117

Post by CaptSpify »

jlebrech wrote: post #58
SimeVidas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What‘s the alternative (for web apps)?

don't make them

Agreed. We should never have been putting "apps" on the web in the first place. Giving control from the client over to the server is a terrible idea, and I'm amazed it ever took off.

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#118

Post by domenicd »

ChrisSD wrote: post #52
geofft wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ask someone to stop doing something legal. I'd hate to live in the sort of world where you can't. HN moderators would send the police after you to seize your laptop if you make bad comments. The only way to get your roommate to stop eating your plums would be to charge them with larceny. Every relationship would end with a restraining order, or it wouldn't be over. Failing to turn in a homework assignment on…

Sure but they are using the copyright to insist on attribution, which undermines the argument that they are simply against using the law. If they really didn't care they'd use CC0. And in the quoted statement they are not saying the W3C should improve their process for forking WHATWG's work. They are saying the W3C shouldn't fork their work at all. So despite their specifically chosen license (with easy to understand…

This change to requiring attribution is actually fairly recent, and was made with some reluctance on the part of us editors, despite eventually agreeing it was the best path forward. See https://blog.whatwg.org/copyright-license-change

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#119

Post by [deleted] »

duskwuff wrote: post #107
frik wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with W3C again? Are we on the same train we were with the ill-fated XHTML 1 strict and XHTML 2. Anyway what's going on anyway with Google+Microsoft+Apple+W3C, why is there such a big push to HTTPS and HTTP/2, and declaring old HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1 and HTTPS/1 and HTML5.0 as legacy!? And why is Mail still sent in plain text completely insecure, and no adoption hype to support SMIME/etc? It is beyond fishy.…

This W3C recommendation is essentially meaningless. The W3C's "HTML 5.x" specifications have never been considered normative by browsers. The actual HTML specification which browsers follow is maintained by WHATWG at: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/

[deleted]

Re: HTML 5.2 Recommendation

#120

Post by austincheney »

masswerk wrote: post #60

Hm – I'm not too happy to see most of the original HTML-elements marked "not conforming" and "must not be used", thus preparing for browsers to eventually drop the support. There are still lots of web-sites and valuable information stored and archived in this format. Back in the day, it was thought that basic HTML was a format to last. Who is going to update these documents in order to make them conforming to future…

> Back in the day, it was thought that basic HTML was a format to last.

HTML was never intended to be archival. Archival assumes a long term relationship between format and user-agent, but those two things evolve independently.

> Who is going to update these documents in order to make them conforming to future browsers?

You don't update legacy documents stored in an archive. You find a conforming user-agent (appropriately old browser version) to consume them in their intended state.

> Is it worth it?

Yes, HTML is a versioned format. Improvements to the format are welcomed and necessary.

Post reply on HN