Marc's brain backups (incremental)

HTML5 renamed HTML, is a “living standard”. Good or bad?

HTML5 logoRecently Ian Hickson maintainer of the HTML5 spec at WhatWG announced that HTML5 would be renamed HTML and is essentially a living standard, meaning unversioned. Incidentally or not, that came one day after W3C unveiled their new HTML5 logo to the world. So obviously that was and is controversial.

Dion Almaer takes a look at what that might actually mean and how developers should get involved with the whole process. I recommend you read it. I think he’s smarter than I am.

Later in the day the good folks at HTML5 Doctor posted a very interesting article presenting two opinions for and against the living standard doctrine. There are many good arguments there, some of them in the comments.

I currently tend to think, let WhatWG develop the cutting-edge ‘living standard’ and APIs in concert with progressive browser vendors and ‘alpha developers’. And let W3C sort out the versioning so we can have certain baselines that we know implementers either support or don’t.

One Response

  1. Paul

    Living or not, HTML as a standard remains a bad idea. The format of the content browsers interpret should be separate from, and more primitive than any human-readable format of web authorship.

    A lower-level standard is easier to implement in terms of completeness, flexibility, reliability, and security. It would also free the web from the limitations of HTML and JavaScript, and make better standards and tools possible all without the help of a standards committee.

    February 1, 2012 at 22:57

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>