If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   HTML5 is feature complete, which means companies can start adding proprietary extensions without fear that they will become standardized   (money.cnn.com) divider line 21
    More: PSA, interactive video, feature complete, Google's YouTube, web designers, World Wide Web Consortium, web standards, habitat fragmentation, Silverlight  
•       •       •

1814 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-25 01:53:43 PM  
But what about Javascript, Java, Flash, Shockwave ActiveX and .NET?

How will the tools in the dev shed shove unwanted content now?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:59 PM  
What's next? W3C is already working on HTML 5.1, the first parts of which were just submitted in draft form.

"Feature Complete" = "everybody's tired of arguing".
 
2012-12-25 03:20:12 PM  
I just want to know if it has any special enhancements to the blink tag.
 
2012-12-25 03:24:57 PM  
Wake me up when I can write site in HTML 5 without needing to check it in every browser I care about.....until then, I don't see the point.
 
2012-12-25 03:33:49 PM  
I'll believe it when I can play youtube videos with it turned on
 
2012-12-25 03:51:19 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Wake me up when I can write site in HTML 5 without needing to check it in every browser I care about.....until then, I don't see the point.


Wake me when you can do that with anything. You'd think, "Oh, Flash plugins are all the same," and then Chrome starts bundling it, Safari stops, and IE just continues being IE, and you have no reliability about what version of Flash is deployed on a single computer, let alone across computers.

Of course, then you do some basic JavaScript stuff and find out that it works in IE9 and 10, until Microsoft releases a patch for IE9 that breaks anything which depends on knockoutjs, and then they fix it in a subsequent patch but don't mention it.

Screw you, Microsoft, screw you.
 
2012-12-25 04:10:18 PM  
Are those cocksuckers at Apple still interfering with the standards? They were trying slide in a couple patents on parts of HTML5 the last I heard.
 
2012-12-25 04:38:37 PM  
I'm really curious as to why they didn't mandate HTML5 be an application of XML. It's already there. There are myriad tools that can process it. It's well standardized.

I know HTML5 can be XML, but it doesn't have to be. Anyone know why?
 
2012-12-25 04:59:32 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: They were trying slide in a couple patents on parts of HTML5 the last I heard.


No, they weren't. They were trying to make H.264 the standard for video encoding. As was Microsoft. And while H.264 is patent encumbered, it's also the format with the most widely available hardware decoders, a must-have if you're making mobile devices. It's also worth noting that the patent isn't owned by Microsoft or Apple, but by MPEG-LA (which both Apple and Microsoft are involved with).

Lord Dimwit: I know HTML5 can be XML, but it doesn't have to be. Anyone know why?


Backwards compatibility, mostly. If you want to really quibble, you could state that all HTML is XML, but is not required to be valid XML.
 
2012-12-25 05:57:01 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I know HTML5 can be XML, but it doesn't have to be. Anyone know why?


There's a few reasons; whether they are good reasons is another question.

1. Backwards compatibility. Many reasonable HTML 2.0 documents are already valid 5.0.
2. Some kinds of web page templates don't work well in XML.  (For instance, the template might have to track a lot of state just to make sure a tag is properly closed halfway down the page.)
3. There's a thought that the low barrier to entry is not a bad thing so it's probably a good idea to keep a format more amenable to hand-editing around.
 
2012-12-25 06:02:58 PM  

t3knomanser: If you want to really quibble, you could state that all HTML is XML,


I really want to quibble, and HTML is not XML.  According to the XML spec, there is no such thing as invalid XML.  It's either valid XML, or not XML.  The best thing you could say is that a subset of HTML documents are also valid XHTML.
 
2012-12-25 06:04:20 PM  

Generation_D: But what about Javascript, Java, Flash, Shockwave ActiveX and .NET?

How will the tools in the dev shed shove unwanted content now?


One of those things is not like the others.... Javascript, particularly how the Javascript DOM API interacts with new HTML elements, including CANVAS, AUDIO, and VIDEO, is a big part of the HTML5 standard.

Also, Hixie, the editor of the "HTML5" standard is sitll updating the WHATWG HTML standard daily... so even if the W3C decides to call HTML5 "done", HTML will still be developing with or without the blessing of the W3C

t3knomanser: Backwards compatibility, mostly. If you want to really quibble, you could state that all HTML is XML, but is not required to be valid XML.


That's not correct in any interpretation I can think of.

All HTML can be expressed as XML. That's pretty much true. That's about where the similarity ends. For example, you can have HTML that would pass an XML validator, and feed it to an XML parser, and there are still going to be differences, especially when it comes to namespaces.

HTML is not XML, and that's not just an issue of backward compatibility. There are lots more reasons why HTML is being advanced as its own syntax and not XHTML, and backwards compatibility isn't really the whole story. For example, even if all modern browsers supported XHTML, I would still serve it as text/html because I want the browser to render my web pages faster with incremental rendering.

HTML fails more gracefully, but that doesn't mean that it's not "required" to be "valid" HTML.

The better answer is that HTML is just HTML and not XML because HTML is better.
 
2012-12-25 06:04:26 PM  
I thought the entire point of HTML5 was that it would never be complete; the spec would continue to grow.
 
2012-12-25 07:09:04 PM  

aerojockey: It's either valid XML, or not XML.


I probably shouldn't pun while drinking. Is that even a pun? I don't know what you'd call it. That's what I was trying to communicate, but in a really so-unfunny-it-isn't-funny way.

jonny_q: HTML is not XML, and that's not just an issue of backward compatibility.


This is true, but it's the easiest reason to explain. The real reason is that HTML is defined in SGML, which is a more expressive tool than XML for defining structures. There simply are things that can be represented in SGML that can't be expressed in XML. While XHTML does a great job working around those points, and does a better job keeping the spec modular and comprensible, the SGML spec is more powerful.
 
2012-12-25 09:07:04 PM  
This is great news. Now I shall be able to view the world wide web on my internet machine.
 
hej
2012-12-25 09:36:37 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I'm really curious as to why they didn't mandate HTML5 be an application of XML. It's already there. There are myriad tools that can process it. It's well standardized.

I know HTML5 can be XML, but it doesn't have to be. Anyone know why?


Because it was derived from SGML, just like XML was.
 
2012-12-25 10:52:06 PM  

theurge14: This is great news. Now I shall be able to view the world wide web on my internet machine.


Will this enable us to download emails? My staff tried to send me a blog last week, but it got lost.
 
2012-12-26 02:30:43 AM  
Great. giving Apple users something else to be smug about.
 
2012-12-26 07:35:16 AM  

theurge14: This is great news. Now I shall be able to view the world wide web on my internet machine.


twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
Yes, I will help you with that.
 
2012-12-26 10:39:06 AM  

t3knomanser: the SGML spec is more powerful


I would describe it as "more permissive", but I haven't seen much useful stuff in SGML that couldn't be done in a subset, like XML or HTML, so i don't think it's more powerful. If you have time, I'd love to be proven wrong, although the way things are going, JSON will likely supplant *ML for many uses.
 
2012-12-26 12:38:41 PM  

mccallcl: I would describe it as "more permissive"


That's probably more accurate. I honestly haven't worked much with SGML.

mccallcl: JSON will likely supplant *ML for many uses.


JSON's great for all those situations where XML is like swatting a fly with a nuclear warhead. Which is a bunch of situations.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report