At first I thought the logo was fugly and stupid, but it's growing on me. The web has become much more responsive and quick with webkit passing acid 3 and a lot of browsers making huge progress in supporting html5 tags. I like where we are going.
so with no version there is no way to ever know what browser supports what or if your site will work with one version of a browser or not. So it will be exactly like the disaster we have today.
Rather than fix the problem by versioning the spec, like all specs are versioned, and moving html to a strict format like xhtml, they do nothing. Browser makers will have nothing to test, and nothing to aim for. So we will realistically have a situation worse than today. Every browser will support HTML while no one will support anything and there will be no way to tell what browser supports what.
What a joke. A standard with no versioning is not a standard, it is a disaster.
*disaster* I don't think it means what you think it means. Really. hyperbole much???!!!
You do not do any real software development, do you? It is impossible to code to a moving target and be successful. The HTML5 spec is a simple case of horrible management. Simply set a date and no more features after that. Publish the spec and move on to defining the next rev. Very simple to do. There is no thinking outside the box. Simple timeboxing the HTML spec would solve this issue as it does for other major specifications.
You are right, I don't do web development for any professional solutions, only as a hobby. Regardless I am heavily involved in technology & I'm looking at this from more than just a developer standpoint. I also think you misunderstand my point a little.
I'm not talking about a moving target, I'm talking about incremental models vs bulk change models. I could be wrong but from their announcement I got more that they weren't talking about a standard with features that are constantly being re-designed but rather something where new features are added as sub standards and then built upon. I know that probably seems like 2 ways of saying the same thing but there is a difference. Things are moving so fast right now that developers are actually working off a lot of specifications that are still technically incomplete. The main issue with how long the process takes for review and standardization is that you can end up with many forks in the way people achieve the same thing and once the actual standard is approved some of those forks get left out in the cold. The only way to try & bring some uniformity back to web is to drastically speed up the standards process. That is what they are trying to do.
You are right, it is frustrating to have to constantly change & update things, but it can also be exciting to have that freedom to move on things rather than be stuck for months in uncertainty. If you love coding & programming I think this is not a big concern to you. If you don't like change then this probably sounds like a nightmare to you. That's not a criticism, just an observation. In the end no change can gain everyone's approval and there is nothing anyone can do about that...just the way it is.
I'm not talking about a moving target, I'm talking about incremental models vs bulk change models. I could be wrong but from their announcement I got more that they weren't talking about a standard with features that are constantly being re-designed but rather something where new features are added as sub standards and then built upon.
I think part of the problem with not having a standard is that web pages that do comply with standards have a document type, be it transitional, loose, or strict.
HTML5 documents can't define a document type in that manner because it will break the page. So instead they define it simply as:
Code:
<!doctype html>
This is where we run in to trouble trying to incrementally update portions of the page as you suggest. No, you have to throw the whole thing out and start over but in doing so you also throw out all the standards based stuff that preceded.
To further pollute the web, most of the stuff that people consider HTML5 are not even using HTML5 but are the whiz bang animation and cool visual elements which use custom JS not pure standards based JS, 1.8.5 being the most recent.
In order to achieve those animations developers are relying on code like -webkit-transform and -moz-transform functions to specifically target certain browsers using prefixes so it is safely ignored by other browsers.
All the eager advocates are praising the virtues of HTML5 open standards when in fact no one is using any standards whatsoever and then calling it HTML5.
Comments
And yet not a single page passes HTML5 validation... I guess this is "standards compliant" right?
dayum, One Infinite Loop just collapsed into a steaming mess of quivering fail with that comment!!!!
so with no version there is no way to ever know what browser supports what or if your site will work with one version of a browser or not. So it will be exactly like the disaster we have today.
Rather than fix the problem by versioning the spec, like all specs are versioned, and moving html to a strict format like xhtml, they do nothing. Browser makers will have nothing to test, and nothing to aim for. So we will realistically have a situation worse than today. Every browser will support HTML while no one will support anything and there will be no way to tell what browser supports what.
What a joke. A standard with no versioning is not a standard, it is a disaster.
*disaster* I don't think it means what you think it means. Really. hyperbole much???!!!
You do not do any real software development, do you? It is impossible to code to a moving target and be successful. The HTML5 spec is a simple case of horrible management. Simply set a date and no more features after that. Publish the spec and move on to defining the next rev. Very simple to do. There is no thinking outside the box. Simple timeboxing the HTML spec would solve this issue as it does for other major specifications.
You are right, I don't do web development for any professional solutions, only as a hobby. Regardless I am heavily involved in technology & I'm looking at this from more than just a developer standpoint. I also think you misunderstand my point a little.
I'm not talking about a moving target, I'm talking about incremental models vs bulk change models. I could be wrong but from their announcement I got more that they weren't talking about a standard with features that are constantly being re-designed but rather something where new features are added as sub standards and then built upon. I know that probably seems like 2 ways of saying the same thing but there is a difference. Things are moving so fast right now that developers are actually working off a lot of specifications that are still technically incomplete. The main issue with how long the process takes for review and standardization is that you can end up with many forks in the way people achieve the same thing and once the actual standard is approved some of those forks get left out in the cold. The only way to try & bring some uniformity back to web is to drastically speed up the standards process. That is what they are trying to do.
You are right, it is frustrating to have to constantly change & update things, but it can also be exciting to have that freedom to move on things rather than be stuck for months in uncertainty. If you love coding & programming I think this is not a big concern to you. If you don't like change then this probably sounds like a nightmare to you. That's not a criticism, just an observation. In the end no change can gain everyone's approval and there is nothing anyone can do about that...just the way it is.
I'm not talking about a moving target, I'm talking about incremental models vs bulk change models. I could be wrong but from their announcement I got more that they weren't talking about a standard with features that are constantly being re-designed but rather something where new features are added as sub standards and then built upon.
I think part of the problem with not having a standard is that web pages that do comply with standards have a document type, be it transitional, loose, or strict.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">;
HTML5 documents can't define a document type in that manner because it will break the page. So instead they define it simply as:
<!doctype html>
This is where we run in to trouble trying to incrementally update portions of the page as you suggest. No, you have to throw the whole thing out and start over but in doing so you also throw out all the standards based stuff that preceded.
To further pollute the web, most of the stuff that people consider HTML5 are not even using HTML5 but are the whiz bang animation and cool visual elements which use custom JS not pure standards based JS, 1.8.5 being the most recent.
In order to achieve those animations developers are relying on code like -webkit-transform and -moz-transform functions to specifically target certain browsers using prefixes so it is safely ignored by other browsers.
All the eager advocates are praising the virtues of HTML5 open standards when in fact no one is using any standards whatsoever and then calling it HTML5.
Jeez, don't they have better things to work on?
Fix a bug !
Yes, because the web team also develop software and design the packaging.
You do realise there is a team dedicated to each project, not one room of five people who are responsible for all aspects of the company.
Do get a grip.