61–70 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with namespaces in your opinion?
Who the heck wants to type <html: before every single command? Waste of programmer's time, hard drive storage and bandwidth.
Namespaces are needed for embedding things like SVG, MathML, etc. in HTML or XML documents.
Some good ideas here but some terrible ones as well. First, is terrible. We don't need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that's a different story). would be sufficient. Even better, something like this: I do like the idea of not having generic 's everywhere. You can already do this with, for example, Angular. Basically, aside from the pre-defined elements (div, span, input, etc.) I want to just use w…
Bzzt, wrong. How would you propose we allow other document types to be embedded in HTML (like SVG)? Just hope the tag names never collide?
Some good ideas here but some terrible ones as well. First, is terrible. We don't need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that's a different story). would be sufficient. Even better, something like this: I do like the idea of not having generic 's everywhere. You can already do this with, for example, Angular. Basically, aside from the pre-defined elements (div, span, input, etc.) I want to just use w…
You just gave the exact definition of web components! https://www.polymer-project.org/platform/custom-elements.htm...
Isn't html5 supposed to be a living standard [1], meaning continuous updates and no html:next spec? [1] https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standar...
As the link you referenced states, the WHATWG's non-versioned living standard attempts to stay "a little ahead of the implementations" with the goal of (hopefully) guiding implementors toward common goals.
The W3C periodically looks at already-implemented features and creates versioned snapshots (like HTML5, HTML5.1, etc.) with the goal of providing developers with a stable, known set of features for development.
Different purposes, different specs, both useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the title (and domain name) are a bit misleading: that's not HTML6, because it doesn't appear to be endorsed by anything related to the web standards (Mozilla, W3C, etc). That's MyHTML, sure, but not really HTML6. HTML5 was exactly that; just a bunch of implementors (WhatWG) until the W3C eventually endorsed it.
Except WHATWG is made of many of the same members as the W3C.
but I feel there is still more that is needed. Specially with regards to and tags. Have you come across how tricky it can be to style both? Both of these require more simple styling and controls. Also, I would very much welcome some sort of basic encryption for data submitted by tags, given that many don't need SSL certificate level of security, but being totally naked is not okay as well.
I hate to shit on people's work[1] on HN because everyone else does it but I earnestly think this will get filed in the same bin as XHTML, aka "no web developer actually cares about this so no one will write it and it will die an awkward, forgotten death." HTML5 did some very important things. Mainly it wrestled back the web from plugins. Hey, remember Flash? Isn't that great! That in 2014 I can say "Remember Flash?"…
Namespaces in XML was the biggest mistake in XML.