Talk:HTML5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move - 2007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

From HTML5 to HTML 5 as in W3C documents. Armando82 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Support - Armando82 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this one slipped through the net, but better late than never. This article has been renamed from HTML5 to HTML 5 as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The W3C documents use "HTML5". "HTML 5" is the spec, "HTML5" is the language (or the text/html serialization). This page should be titled "HTML5". Zcorpan 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Zcorpan is right. The WHATWG community refers to the language and its text/html serialization as "HTML5" without the space. The title of the specification is "HTML 5" with the space. Hsivonen (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this page makes me think that HTML 5 is not the same as XHTML 5. I was under the impression that XHTML5 referred to the same thing (i.e. they were synonomous).

HTML 5 will have its X(HTML) 5 sister, but XHTML 2 is totally different beast: http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2/ -- 194.251.240.116 11:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

XHTML5 is what you get when an HTML5 document is served as XML instead of HTML. Browsers will interpret XHTML5 and HTML5 documents differently, for example in XHTML it is possible to mix other types of XML content such as SVG and MATHML into the document. --jacobolus (t) 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It actually IS called HTML5 with no space

Re-open, since HTML5 is now the accepted spelling. http://blog.whatwg.org/spelling-html5 --itpastorn (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, (most of the links to this in other pages seem to be HTML5 aswell). Mackha (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a speedy move, since it's clear-cut, and Canley did it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, it seems like there was already another RFM that was closed below as keep, which I didn't spot. So that was actually out of line, I guess. But it really is clear-cut. All of the most recent versions of the standard are "HTML5". The only official HTML5-related documents that are still called "HTML 5" (like the W3C Working Draft snapshot) are just out of date. Still, if someone wants to revert the move and/or have another move discussion, I won't object. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

HTML 5 is a project??

Now the page HTML 5 is marked {{future product}}, but isn't HTML 5 now a project, later to become a web standard? (or possibly not). Then if the article is written like HTML 5 being a project, it only partially treats future. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't future software either. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(3 years later): Mostly it is. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

The section on the media codec controversy is about as POV as it could possibly be; yes, there's controversy, but the presentation in this article is neither neutral nor balanced. Ubernostrum (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking at it carefully, here's what needs to be fixed:

• The citations are entirely in favor of the "outrage" position, with no mention of, for example, the WHATWG's response or the discussion on the WHATWG mailing list.
• The use of the phrase "led to disappointment among bloggers" is, or borders on, weasel words.
• There is almost no actual substance to the section; a proper treatment would involve, at the very least, an explanation of the actual issue, preferably without cherry-picking of loaded quotes from the "outraged" sources.

I don't have time to deal with this tonight, but if no-one else gets to it I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Ubernostrum (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article in order to address the above three concerns and have removed the POV notice. If anyone should feel that the third point, about requiring further explanation of the actual issue, still needs addressing, feel free to edit it further or re-apply the POV notice mmj (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote it. I tried to be as factual as possible. Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, a lot of weight is on the codec issue, while the rest of the article (the majority of it) is pretty vague - it just lists the new APIs et al. Just that is hardly interesting for readers (assume a readership not entirely familiar with the subject). A discussion on what scenarios these features and APIs enable would be a lot more interesting than reading the political debate over codecs. The entire controversy can be summed up in a more concise manner. --soum ^talk 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a criticism section

Some groups and individuals are pretty anti-html5. I wonder if there is concesus for adding a criticism section. I could do some research to see how notable the criticism is. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

If it's possible to be against HTML 5, I say go ahead! Still, I think it would be best to elaborate on the article proper first; it's rather short considering the complexity of the issue. Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After following the evolution of XHTML2 for a while, I have noticed some sound reactions on W3C's engaging into HTML 5 activity. I'll try to review my browser's history to recover these references, so an appropriate criticism section can be made from there; and for what I have seen it seems that an important part of the criticism comes from the issue of having two conflicting standards (XHTML2 vs HTML5) for the same purpose. I prefer not to write this section myself because I'd find extremely hard to keep NPOV Eduard Pascual (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of blog posts criticising HTML5:

• http://realtech.burningbird.net/semantic-web/rdf-and-rdfa/arbitrary-vocabularies-and-other-crufty-stuff
• http://realtech.burningbird.net/semantic-web/semantic-web-issues-and-practices/going-non-standard

--Sjgibbs (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can personally add HTML5: Character encodings containing a lot of willful violations of W3C Character Model proclaiming that Windows code pages shall be used before ISO standard encodings, even if it obfuscates the content for the browser user. Those willful violations are disgusting. However, blog comments should be used sparingly (user comments never), better if we could find newspaper articles. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, lets add a criticism section to mention the problems with html5 not being "futureproof/extensible". My understanding may be lacking, but as far as I can see, the inability to create robust/semantic new formats of an individualized nature is a scary hole in the current html5 spec. For a quote on the reasoning from alistapart: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/semanticsinhtml5/ Quote: "We don’t need to add specific terms to the vocabulary of HTML, we need to add a mechanism that allows semantic richness to be added to a document as required. In technical terms, we need to make HTML extensible. HTML 5 proposes no mechanism for extensibility." In essence, if html5 isn't extensible, then we're setting ourselves up to need an html6 in another decade as we come to terms with the glaring omissions that the future creates in html5, and then an html7 when we realize what's missing in html6, repeat ad infinitum. This issue with html5 really needs either a substantial rebuttal or it needs to stand as a major criticism that the html5 spec can work towards solving. --Tchalvak (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#HTML5_should_support_a_way_for_anyone_to_invent_new_elements.21 is some of WHATWG considers solutions to the extensibility problem. Whether they're sufficient or not, I certainly think that the extensibility question needs mention for wider consideration, their rebuttal included. --Tchalvak (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this idea, a criticism section is definitely needed. If I find the time I may work on one some day, but I may need help with it. --Garoad (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It should not have a criticism section: see Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Preferably, it should have criticism mixed in naturally with the rest of the content of the article, with pros and cons of various things being mentioned in turn. (However, a criticism section is better than not mentioning criticism at all, of course.) —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Criticism section: "When present, such sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article is restructured to integrate criticism into each relevant section." It's not there at all now. Integrating it is fine but as you said, better to have it somewhere than not at all. If I or anyone else do add one however feel free to relocate into the main block of the article. --Garoad (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ogg controversy

The Ogg controversy section should have its own page. It goes into too much detail that is unrelated to html5. 68.0.127.143 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree - if anyone can be bothered, that is. Furthermore, having all that stuff here acts as a magnet for further cruft. First myself, and more recently Hsivonen have had to remove unsourced and heavily biassed campaign material from this page. This campaign within the W3C process may be important to the future of the web, but Wikipedia is not the place to carry it out.

I have today removed some more detail that was already marked 'confusing'. I reproduce it below in case anybody wants to start an HTML 5 Ogg controversy page and finds it useful. If you do though, it will be full time work to try and keep it encyclopedic and to stop it becoming a personal blog space for opposing fans.

Regarding the 'confusing' tag, I didn't add it, but even as a long-term Linux user whose whole audio collection is FLAC, I find the following confusing (without further research):

1. Apple say they "oppose the recommendation" (presumably the now-defunct one that "User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio") then we give three criticisms only of Theora.
2. Then we go through a process or elimination that seems to come down on the side of Vorbis, noting that it is used by video game people.

If there are two Ogg formats under dispute, Theora and Vorbis, then an encyclopedic treatment would enumerate pro and con arguments for both, not con arguments for one, and pro arguments for the other. If there are half a dozen other competing ideas, then they all need pro and con arguments. If there are various interested parties (game producers, game users, software developers, audio and video producers, audio and video consumers, audiophiles and mobile users, web designers etc etc) then each of their points of view re each realistically contending format need to be enumerated with reliable references. Since this is a constantly shifting argument, and if new formats come into the frame regularly (while others lose support) then maintaining an up-to-date and balanced encyclopedia article at this stage would be, in my opinion, nearly impossible, or rather, a full time job for several dedicated editors. --Nigelj (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

<snip 'recently removed content'>

Maciej Stachowiak — an Apple developer working on WebKit — described the reasons Apple had for opposing the recommendation, in an email message posted to the WHATWG mailing list:

• Other codecs offer significantly better compression than Theora; large-scale providers will prefer them to save bandwidth costs.
• Few — if any — hardware decoders are available for Theora. For mobile usage, software decoding is either unavailable or impractical due to power usage.
• It is theoretically possible for a submarine patent to exist, possibly waiting for a "deep pockets" (wealthy) company like Apple.

Stachowiak also pointed out that the HTML specifications, traditionally, also failed to specify what referenced formats to use, leaving it to the market to decide.

There is agreement between the vendors that a "baseline" codec of some form is needed: a codec everyone will be able to access. Besides Vorbis and Theora, H.261, H.264, AAC and MP3 were mentioned. The latter three are unacceptable to Opera and Mozilla on both practical and ideological grounds (they are all covered by patents). Ogg Theora is unlikely to be accepted by Apple and Nokia, which leaves H.261 and Vorbis. Unlike Theora, Vorbis is already in use by multiple very large corporations in the video game business, and offers quality comparable to AAC. On December 12, 2007, Xiph.org published their official statement, objecting to some of the arguments against their codecs.

</snip>

Comment: they are silly criticisms. Just Apple trying to save its own ass re its own patents and associated technologies. The two main points: (1) Theora can improve its compression. (2) Apple has plenty of time to implement Theora hardware decoders before HTML5 goes mainstream. Xyz98711 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whose idea was this?

I see who opposed it, but who brought it up in the first place?

What's so special about OGG?

What other free (libre) media format has been proposed for inclusion in a W3C markup specification? PNG? SVG? TXT? RSS? WTF? None? It's not even required that useragents support or display images of any format at all - what's so special about OGG that it gets special attention from W3C? This isn't intended to be argumentative, I sincerely want to know what's behind this. It seems so contrary to the way any other peripheral media is considered in relation to Web markup language specifications and development.

Current Status of Implementation

There ought to be a section about the current status of implementation. As well it doesn't discuss some major features such as the database and appstore that google just demoed. Ezra Wax (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of layout engines (HTML 5) --81.243.212.122 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh WTF?

Besides Vorbis and Theora, H.261, H.264, AAC and MP3 were mentioned.[20] The latter three are unacceptable to Opera and Mozilla on both practical and ideological grounds (they are all covered by patents). Ogg Theora is unlikely to be accepted by Apple and Nokia, which leaves H.261 and Vorbis. Unlike Theora, Vorbis is already in use by multiple very large corporations in the video game business,[21] and offers quality comparable to AAC. On 12 December 2007, Xiph.org published their official statement, objecting to some of the arguments against their codecs.[22]

Why on earth is the paragraph including both audio and video codecs as if they are the same thing? Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, cause it's poorly written, i would say. Go ahead and improve it. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Versions vs Revisions

"HTML 5 (HyperText Markup Language Version 5) is the fifth major revision of the core language . . ." seems numerically incorrect. The fifth version is the fourth major revision; unless something major happened for one of the point releases, in which case some elaboration seems warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.103.111 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was an example of a Fence post error. But was there an HTML 1.0 that was ever published? No, the first published document was probably the one called HTML Tags, there was another called HTML+, and then that was followed by HTML 2.0, which might make the mention of 'fifth' correct. But the IETF published something called Hypertext Markup Language in between the appearance of HTML Tagsand that of HTML+. I think there is nothing to be gained by trying to decide which of these were 'major' and which were not, even allowing for discussions about the major-ness of the updates from 3.0 to 3.2, 4 to 4.01, HTML 4 to XHTML 1.0, etc. I'd rather avoid the issue here, if possible. There's nothing to be gained from it. I hope the tweak I put in place just now bypasses the issue. --Nigelj (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Isn't it supposed to be named HTML/XHTML 5? Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 01:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No. "HTML5" refers both to the entire standard, and to the HTML serialization specified in the standard. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No Version/Edition tag?

This consideration might be erroneous but how the fuck haven't they included a Version/Edition tag in HTML 5 ? --Faustnh (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Open video

Open video redirects to here, but is not mentioned in the article. I was trying to figure out what exactly Open Video is, so this is not helpful. --76.193.174.201 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And why would a standard video codec for web content make rich internet applications obsolete?

Although the most frequent use of Flash is probably to display videos, it's not the only use.

And even whee it's used for this, it always has additional navigation functions that exceed the video playing.

--Ikar.us (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because some people really resent having Flash on their machines just to be able to watch simple video on YouTube, resent being continually prompted to download updates from third-party companies that are required to get certain sites to work, or don't like or don't trust Macromedia/Adobe, Apple and Microsoft because of some of the things that the companies have done in the past, because of the annoyance of continually coming across deliberately-engineered incompatibilities designed to lock users into the latest release of the plugins, and because of the possible security risks involved in downloading updates from companies that have shown a fondness in the past for adding spyware-like features to programs.

For most people, the main application of Flash and Quicktime is to watch movies. If they could watch movies on their web browsers reliably and well by default, then they wouldn't need Flash or QuickTime or Silverlight, and they wouldn't have these continual update and security patch annoyances caused by the companies using end-users as pawns in their fight for market share. If there was an open cross-platform video player distributed as part of the browser that "just worked" without all this political crud going on, life would be simpler. You could still download Flash/Quicktime/Silverlight if you actually needed the extra features for a specific site, but many people wouldn't bother. For a lot of people Flash intros on websites are like the annoying animated intros that you're forced to watch on some DVDs before you're permitted to actually watch the damn movie that you've bought - you know that somewhere out there there's a graphic designer who's damn pleased with what they've created, but for the user, they just want to get at the content and damn the expensive fancy packaging and frustrating non-standard user interfaces.

Trouble is, the companies that produce Flash and QuickTime and Silverlight know this, and know that if video playback was simple without their products, that their proprietary systems would risk becoming "niche" solutions. So that's why Microsoft and Apple are so dead set against the idea of there being a standardised built-in video codec thingummy, and that's why some open-surce campaigners are so keen on the idea, were so happy that HTML5 seemed to be aboput to fix things and make "the plugin wars" less important (and less relevant), and that's why they were so disappointed when standardised playback got dropped from the HTML5 spec. ErkDemon (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Browser Support

it would be great to see browser support plans on this article some day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.130.59 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, how about from here http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Implementations_in_Web_browsers Rockinrimmer (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to "HTML5"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Additionally, various searches support the notion that the spaced version is the common name (see, e.g., [1] vs. [2]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

---

HTML 5 → HTML5 — The editor's draft is called "HTML5". Zcorpan (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment if this is the successor to HTML 4.01 ; then it's a version number, so it should be "HTML 5" ... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Consistent with the specification. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - our other references (at HTML, for instance) include a space ("HTML 4" and the like). I don't see why not here too. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The W3C uses "HTML 5",^[3] as do several other sources.^[4][5] Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Version number should have space (as a general rule for software versioning). HTML 4 and prior versions also has a space. —fudoreaper (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism on the vote on the space

One of the voters cites the latest W3C Working Draft as a reason to have a space, but a newer Editor's Draft no longer has the space. Removing the space was requested by The HTML5 Super Friends. Hsivonen (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's no spelled without a space (http://blog.whatwg.org/spelling-html5), so I'll move the article - Hoo man (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New introduction needed

For non-techies this whole article is close to incomprehensible. The introduction focusses on the history and minute development steps of HTML5, not what it does and what it means for us out there, who just use this stuff without necessarily understanding it all. Clearly this is an important topic; I am not a fool; I'm also a constant user of Wikipedia and the web in general but i just don't know what all this is about. Would someone who knows and understands this subject please write the kind of opening four or five paragraphs that anyone with a medium-sized brain can understand. It's probably the worst Wikipedia article I've ever come across. It does not "translate" what's going on for those of us without all the jargon but seems designed to make those who already know feel smug and special. (194.151.78.5 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

Personally, I agree with you. From a website developer working in the industry for 6 years the current introduction is only just comprehendible for me. I showed this article to some friends earlier and they honestly did not have a clue what it was about. I think that the introduction needs to be tailored to a non-technical audience, even if the remainder of the article isn't. Animorphus (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Last Call

Lede says it reached Last Call in October. End of the article needs update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.175.10 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 in Firefox (3.x) addons

You won't believe it, but HTML5 is already used in the Firefox addon programming!! I'm just not willing to mess with the article, but I've decided to put it into the discussion area so that it be noted at least. Example: <input> elements do now take the number attribute, defined here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/input.number.html . -andy 212.114.254.107 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Parts of HTML5 have been implemented for years. Firefox has supported <canvas> since Firefox 1.5, for instance. And of course the high-profile support for <video> in 3.0. <input number> has been supported in Opera for a few years now. So this isn't really big news. —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Firefox does *not* implement <input type="number"> yet, although it does implement several parts of HTML5. For more information on what Firefox(more specifically, Gecko) supports, see Comparison of layout engines (HTML5) and Web Forms 2 Status Luiscubal (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

CSS 3

I added a reference to CSS 3 in the opening paragraph. Technically, HTML5 is not connected to CSS 3, but in general usage, I've noticed the "html5" buzzword is often used as a catch-all to mean HTML5, CSS 3, and JavaScript. Is there a better way to reflect this usage in the article, or maybe a source to cite that directly makes mention of this fact? It's kind of a "between the lines" thing. Keithjgrant (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Critisism / HTML5 as a buzzword.

Given that there seems to been a bit of a backlash against the use of HTML5 as a buzzword lately would it be worth adding a "critisism" section to address that? Artw (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For instance:

Marketing departments abscond with 'HTML5'

HTML5 'unhinged from reality,' say Javascripters

Artw (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Boolean attributes

It should be noted that shorthand boolean attributes omitting name-value pairs are invalid XML and will fail under the XML serialization of HTML5. HTML5 specifies that the presence of an attribute assigned a value of either the empty string or the literal attribute name is True, otherwise False. Since this is also compatible with the non-XML serialization, should it not be conventional to use valid XML in all HTML5 examples? This may be confusing for those who write exclusively XHTML and haven't seen the shorthand form. It seems rather common practice to write mostly XML syntax anyway except maybe xml:lang, with HTML5 supporting old crappy markup for legacy reasons. The HTML5 video tag for example has a number of boolean attributes for preloading video or adding controls etc:

<video src="foo.webm" width="640" height="360" controls="" autoplay="" />

The main point is that this way is more flexible and consistent even though it isn't strictly required for valid HTML.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#boolean-attribute

Ormaaj (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of things that are valid HTML5 that aren't well-formed XML. We shouldn't restrict ourselves to using well-formed XML in examples, because HTML5 deliberately does permit other markup, and we shouldn't make it look otherwise. The HTML5 spec itself deliberately uses a mix of styles (uppercase/lowercase/mixed case, self-closing tags or not, etc.). —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cloud computing navbox

Can anyone explain why this needs the Cloud Computing navbox? I don't see how HTML5 ties in with that, and it's not one of the topics either. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 15:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't fit at all. I've removed the box. Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't spot it before. —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Differences from HTML 4.... needs an update.

There's a new version of the editor's draft, as of yesterday (2010-09-19), so this section could use an update Peter Law (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

XHTML5 don't need a article of it own at list for now. Srinivasasha (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but keep this as the primary topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section

Moved from User talk:Gyrobo#You edits to HTML5 was OK!

Hello, Gyrobo

Your edit to HTML5 which User:Nigelj undid was absolutely OK: Not just every blog is non-notable and self-published source. Blog posts of notable people such as Tim Sneath are absolutely OK.

Tim Sneath blog is not WP:SPS because although (as SPS put it) "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field," not everyone can have an MSDN blog and become a Windows Evangelist and Platform Specialist without actually being an expert.

Content also counts a lot: Tim Sneath had cited several credible sources such as InfoWorld. Not everything he had said was his own word and self-published. In fact, most of it was not his own word.

However, I put the blog post in Further Reading section because I did suspect that someone like NigelJ might challenge it as a good source for anything. But links in Further Reading section do not need to correspond to WP:SPS: You see, Further Reading section is not for verification! Hence not only SPS but the entire WP:V don't apply! (See WP:FURTHERREADING) We even put Wikibooks and Wikiversity links (via {{Wikibooks}} and {{Wikiversity}}) there which are meant to be self-published!

So, to summarize it: (1) The MSDN blog post is notable. (2) The blog post was not self-published source. (3) Even if it was, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted from Further Reading section (although it might not be viable for verification in the article.) (4) Your first edit was OK.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points, and Tim Sneath probably meets the qualifications of being an acceptable SPS, but:

1. WP:FURTHERREADING says that a Further reading section should be merged with External links if both are short. I really don't see the point in creating an entire section for one reference.
2. I don't see how the link meets WP:EL; if it's mostly a rehashing of an InfoWorld article, it doesn't really bring that much to the article.
3. The date format you've chosen for that particular ref is DMY, which is inconsistent with the other references (YMD).

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First: Sorry about the date format. I just looked at citation list and my eyes fell on this citation:

"^ "Browser Version Market Share". marketshare.hitslink.com. October 2008. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=40&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qpcal=1&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=117&qpnp=1. Retrieved 26 September 2010."

Second: It's not a rehearsing of InfoWorld. InfoWorld is only one of the dozen of sources. The blog post also has a thesis of your own?

Third: If the objection made to it is not valid and you concur, why do you remove it? WP:FURTHERREADING says "editors will occasionally merge the two if both are very short." You try to merge the two and then you find it non-compliant with WP:EL while it was compliant with WP:FURTHERREADING. Then, instead of keeping the Further Reading section, you delete it? That looks like inventing a problem to me. Or am I missing something?

Forth: You have countered my R of BRD with another a revert of your own. This is clearly defined as edit warring. Please don't. Let's do it by the book.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Per the BRD process, you have added content, it has been reverted by two editors. Nigelj says that the source is non-notable, and I feel that per WP:EL, it doesn't add anything to the article. The onus is on you to discuss why this content should be included.
2. The citation you're describing isn't in the article, and you haven't changed the date format of the ref you're trying to add.
3. I think you're conflating WP:FURTHERREADING with WP:EL. I intended to turn the source into a reference to avoid the creation of a new section. However, after Nigelj pointed out that the source may not be notable, I reread WP:EL and came to the conclusion that the ref isn't needed at all.
4. I don't think edit warring means what you think it means. You have frequently and consistently accused me of edit warring and threatened me with bans and tried to intimidate me into silence for making as few as a single change, without any evidence that I edited in bad faith. If you continue to do so, I will request administrative action against you.

--Gyrobo (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You take "everything is in your favor" as instance of intimidate me into silence? With all do respect, you must assume good faith in one who backs you up and says "Your edit [~snip~] was absolutely OK".

If I am intimidating you with my everything is in your favors and Your edit was absolutely OKs, please either go ahead and report me to noticeboard for incivility and stop trying to ruin me in public talk pages.

And as for edit warring, you have made two changes to the Further Reading section of the article that once I and another time NigelJ contested. A discussion was subsequently started. Yet, you reverted the section for a third time to the status that you liked. Looks like edit warring to me. Am I missing something?

Fleet Command (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting cited here, so let me have a go at explaining what I think. First, what is the actual blog post about? It seems that there had previously been a dispute about the 'scope' of HTML5. Is it just what is in the spec, or is it a concept or mindset that includes (in the author's examples), "SVG 1.1, Canvas 2D API, WOFF File Format, WAI-ARIA, and so on."? To understand that question, I think you need to understand that Microsoft and those it has trained over the years have lived in a kind of bubble, that had very little contact with international standards documents, IETF RFCs, W3C recommendations, working groups and what-have-you. True, it was the biggest bubble in town, and some thought it was the only bubble, but the fact that many people were working on, and reading and acting upon, web and other standards never really entered into it. Microsoft (and their vast army of trainees) did, as Microsoft did. Now, quite suddenly, there has been a sea-change in the MS mindset; suddenly they are terribly interested in HTML5, as well as SVG (not VML), CSS, JavaScript, Ajax (not IFRAMEs), etc. This is to be applauded and hopefully one day, no one will have to write two websites - one for IE5.5 and 6, and another for everyone else - ever again. But the concept of standards documents all seems a bit foreign to some of them, and while some of them have been blithely saying "HTML5 this" and "HTML5 that", others have noticed that half of what they're talking about has nothing to do with HTML5. It may be safe to say that "HTML5" has become the name of a Microsoft internal project, which may have been better named "the standards compatibility project", as they make these much-to-be-applauded efforts to join up with the outside world.

So, second, what use is this ref in this article? First it's really of no use as a reference for the sentence, "Like its immediate predecessors, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1, HTML5 is a standard for structuring and presenting content on the World Wide Web.", which is why I removed it in this edit. It doesn't talk about the predecessors, and it is a poor source for accurately defining what HTML5 is for. Second, is it a valid item for 'Further reading'? I have no strong opinion on that matter. As I said above, Microsoft has trained a vast army of MCSEs around the world, and MS are talking about 'HTML5' a lot at the moment, with IE9 coming out, VML getting scrapped, SVG getting adopted etc. I wouldn't be surprised if many MCSEs (etc) were as confused as this blog author seemed to be about all the stuff that they are suddenly expected to know, dotted through several standards documents. Being able to access this blog post may be helpful to some of these people as they make the transition to reading all this stuff (the transition that, it appears, Microsoft is calling 'HTML5'). But to the rest of the world, who have always based their work on published standards, there is almost no useful content in the blog post.

I would leave it in further reading for those who need it to find. I don't see a problem with having a section for only one link. I would object to it being used as a source for any substantive statement about HTML5 or the web itself. I, personally, would not like to try to write all this up as a short sub-section in the article itself as, while I am certain that it's mostly true, I think it would be very hard to find any reliable sources to cite in support of any of it. The reason for that is that I am sure that Microsoft will never admit that they have been ignoring web and internet standards for two decades, while training armies of Microsoft engineers and developers to do the same. In fact I am sure that they would fight tooth-and-nail to insist that they have done no such thing (talking about 'backward compatibility' etc). Hope this helps. --Nigelj (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Beautifully put, NigelJ. Although I confess that I didn't exactly predicted this point of view on Microsoft, as I said earlier, I did foresee the possibility of an opposition. That's why I left the link in the Further Reading section. I agree with your point of view on Microsoft: There were both small issues and large issues which I had taken note of; small issues such as using re-invented term such as HIPS (Human Identification something) instead of CAPTCHA, etc.; large issues such as the Internet Explorer being chiefly made for enterprise users. (I should write a blog post on that one day.)

By the way, I am also an MCSE, Security Specialty. Mind you, we MCSEs have nothing to do with HTML5. MCSE is all about being a network administrator. (And Security Specialty is about being also able to deploy ISA Server.)

Fleet Command (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew I had the wrong letters when I said 'MCSE', but I was rushing to try to get my main thoughts down. I admit I don't know very much about MS's training structures, but I have been sent on a few MS courses, and have worked alongside a few MS-trained guys. My own background more is university-based. --Nigelj (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. :) Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the section should be deleted due to the likelihood of attracting promotional cruft. —Darxus (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I just found a citable source that backs up my ramblings from last October. "... CSS or other standards [...] have nothing to do with HTML5 but are somehow lumped under HTML5 by the likes of Apple, Google, and Microsoft."[6] There's more there, quoted from a blog: "HTML5 features include CSS3? That's seriously confused. Please stop this[, Microsoft]. HTML5 is HTML. CSS3 is CSS. The two are not the same thing."[7] Maybe this confusion-phenomenon does need brief coverage in a small section now? --Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, our subject of discussion ("HTML5: A Specification or a Platform?", Musings of a Client Platform Guy,) totally agrees with you and your recent findings: It says HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, Canvas 2D API, ARIA, WOFF, and Indexed DB are completely distinct. But I will neither support nor oppose a small section on this matter. Fleet Command (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point your attention towards the W3C and the WHATWG: The W3C now defines HTML5 as a moniker for "HTML5, CSS3, SVG, WOFF, etc" (http://www.w3.org/News/2011#entry-8992), and a few hours ago, the WHATWG reacts by "renaming" HTML5 into "HTML" (http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5). I already tried to incorporate the HTML5 logo into the article, but the dust clearly hasn't settled on what is called what now. Takimata (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. never understood how people can mixed up apples and oranges. mabdul 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Likelihood of attracting promotional cruft?" Are you suggesting that we delete good encyclopedic contents because we fear bad contents that are still absent? I strongly disagree. Fleet Command (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead wording

I'm starting this discussion to talk about the changing the lead's wording. The old wording is more appropriate because it specifically mentions the type of embedded media, which is video. It's also more specific about the types of plugins used. The new wording speaks in generic terms and doesn't inform the reader, and it also violates MOS:EMDASH by spacing an em dash.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with vagueness. Phrase "historically implemented in various ways depending on platform" is vague with capital V. If you remove it, reader will still have the same amount of information. Although, I don't care as much about the em dash as I care about the tone of the edit summaries. Fleet Command (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from removing it... yet you just revert, revert. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to to removal of, but this is the first time FleetCommand has reverted your edit. I'm assuming that you saw your edit reverted and thought it was me, but let's just chill out and try to write a good, informative lead. I think it's important to mention Flash and Silverlight. Out of the many plugins that helped build the web (Java, Quicktime, Real, etc.), Flash and Silverlight had the greatest market penetration, as well as the features that HTML5 seeks to acquire.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Gyrobo: Uh, no, he didn't think it was you; we communicated in our talk pages. And when he says remove it, he means the vague statement that I quoted.

@Reisio: I agree with Gyrobo that it is important to mention Adobe Flash and Silverlight. (And yes, nobody is stopping me from removing your vague sentence but removing it is not my problem. My problem is that in converting the clear statement to the vague statement, you have deleted useful verifiable information.) However, I don't think that there is a restriction on what plugin you may name. By all means, you may go ahead and add other plugins to the list too; even you can write a whole section on how HTML5 and its accompanying technologies can do what was once only done by those plugins. (Of course, you need to mind Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.) Fleet Command (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I will give you up to and including your next clear editing activity to produce a source for your "verifiable" information that I can't contradict with numerous others.
Specifically, you must produce any number of reliable sources (that I can't contradict with others) that support the following:

• that the ability to drag-and-drop in the past had much at all to do with third party plugins and wasn't most popularly implemented in JavaScript
• that Microsoft Silverlight on Microsoft Windows is a third party plugin
• that HTML5, predating Microsoft Silverlight by nearly three years, incorporates any features "previously dependent on…Microsoft Silverlight"
• that there was no video playback in browsers without third party plugins before HTML5 (/ was supported)
• that Adobe Flash was the only software used for video playback in browsers before HTML5 (/ was supported)

¦ Reisio (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1. If drag-and-drop was already possible to do natively within browsers, why even mention it at all?
2. The OS doesn't matter, Silverlight is a third-party plugin because it's not native to the browser.
3. HTML5 can't really predate anything because it's not finalized. It continues to evolve in response to the requirements of content providers and developers, and currently lacks some features Silverlight has, such as streaming video and applying shaders.

--Gyrobo (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I already had responses typed out for 1 & 2 but when I got to 3 it just became (far) too silly. I will not be even attempting to explain this to you any more. You simply are not making sense. Fleet, it's up to you, if you've a mind to. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right: The second paragraph of the article is unreferenced and you are perfectly allowed to request for source, challenge unreferenced statements and even delete them. I assume that you are challenging it right now. Let's see if I and Gyrobo can find sources for it. Fleet Command (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not right to represent HTML5 as a response to Flash and Silverlight. As it stood, we only had three sentences in the lead, the first two didn't say much (It's a kind of HTML. It had two predecessors), and the third mentioned just two features (video and dnd) and two proprietary products. That was way too specific. What about all the new semantic tags? The better integration with SVG in html (rather than xhtml)? The canvas element? The error handling requirements on browsers, and the test cases? Audio as well as video? If we feel we have only three sentences for all this, then the third one will be very vague indeed. The better solution is to expand the lead to summarise the whole article, section by section. That way it relies on the referenced text in the article, and doesn't even need its own citations (per WP:LEDE). --Nigelj (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel, for your suggestion regarding WP:LEAD. However, you seem to be of the opinion that the lead section is trying to represent HTML5 as a replacement for Flash and Silverlight. If so, I disagree; the lead section is not saying such thing. (Please consider re-reading the line.) As for the rest of your message (expansion, etc.), I will refuse to comment on them since they are well outside the scope of our discussion. You may open another discussion threat about it if you wish. Fleet Command (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead in the way that I was describing above, to summarise the subject and the article, with citations. Some of the new wikilinks may rely on redirects at this point, but that can be improved. --Nigelj (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This discussion is about the wording of the lede, so of course it's within its scope. Having such a short lede will give added importance to whatever is written, and one of the three sentences is about how HTML5 can replace proprietary plugins. If we added more content, it would seem less prominent and give a better depiction of what HTML5 is.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the new lede is excellent, and at most needs only minor copyedit tweaks. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, kind person. I hope it's OK as a step in the right direction. --Nigelj (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to XML

HTML5 is an XML language isn't it? This should be mentioned in the introduction and the example would begin <?xml version="1.0"?>. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

XHTML5 is, but HTML5 specifically isn't XML. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But .xml is a filename extension for HTML5? Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it may be valid for an XHTML5 document, but certainly not for a HTML5 document. Far more important than filename extensions, though, are Internet media types: text/html for HTML and text/xml, application/xml etc for XML. On some operating systems, for local files, the filename extension drives the setting of the Internet media type, on others the content is more important. Over the internet very often the file name extension is entirely irrelevant and .php, .aspx etc are common for many types. On the internet, the Internet media type is absolutely important. --Nigelj (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nigelj. One other point. The last sentence in the XHTML5 section contains the phrase "whether parsed as HTML or XML". Given that HTML and XML are different levels of abstraction, the comparison is faulty; analogous to saying "whether parsed as Québécois or European French". Wouldn't "whether parsed as HTML or XHTML" be correct? Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Security concerns

It seems to me that some security concerns regarding HTML5 arise more and more, and a section regarding those points would be meaningful. Some sources would be Veracode which has been criticized by Mario Heiderich, some test vectors on a dedicated website, and some more via your favorite search engine, I guess.

I don't want to run into FUD or whatever. I have clearly not enough background regarding this technology to tell by myself what the problems are or will be. Once again, a new technology arises, and is probably promised to a bright future and a broad adoption. This will mean vulnerabilities, exploits, as for any other piece of software, given the low standards we have been used to over the past years/decades.

An other thing that should be checked is the gap between the specification and security holes within the specification, which cannot be mitigated with, and implementation holes, as the standard leaves many options up to the implementors. I clearly understand the standard is not yet finished, official and stuff, but some issues seem important enough for a Black Hat Webcast.

My two cents. DokReggar (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"HTML5" is now "HTML"

Heads up: The WHATWG officially changed the specification's name to "HTML", dropping the version number.[[8]] Which, I believe, opens a can of worms for this article as well as the one for HTML. --Takimata (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 You have misread the blog post. The blog post says "HTML is the new HTML 5" while you are saying the reverse. Reading the blog post confirms my suspicion that "HTML is the new HTML 5" means that HTML 5 specifications are going official. As the blog post put it:

The WHATWG HTML spec can now be considered a "living standard".

As for the version number being dropped, I think someone in the comment section has got it wrong. Comment sections are not reliable sources.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, it quite clearly says that "The HTML specification will henceforth just be known as HTML" and "we moved to a new development model, where the technology is not versioned". Hell, even their FAQ explains it. Now, as for what to do about the articles? Well that's a tricky one indeed, and I'm not sure how this can be resolved at the moment. Given that the W3C hasn't said anything, I wouldn't worry about it for the moment. --Dorsal Axe 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody who is knowledgeable about WHATWG/W3C politics and policy could update the article. I looked at the blog post and it left me quite confused. At a minimum, it does not appear to be accurate to say, "W3C and WHATWG are currently working together on the development of HTML5." -Clconway (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, before, the W3C and the WHATWG were both working on an HTML5 specification, and as far as I understand it, "together" rather in the sense of convergent evolution. Now, the WHATWG decided not to work on specifications anymore, but on evolving and constantly updating HTML as a language and a set of features. The W3C on the other hand will continue to take "snapshots" and develop them into set-in-stone specifications, still using version numbers. So we will have both HTML and HTML5 as "current" languages; HTML is the "living standard" (as used in practice), and both the general term for the language as well as its current state, HTML5 is the "milestone specification". Anything regarding or called "HTML5" is entirely in the W3C's domain now. (Also, the timing is interesting: I don't believe that it's a coincidence that the WHATWG effectively distances itself from the W3C's standardisation process and the HTML5 spec, only two days after the W3C announced the official transformation of the "HTML5" term into a marketing buzzword.) --Takimata (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly something's going on here, but we need to remember that we are WP:NOTNEWS. It will be a little while before reliable sources report exactly what happened, and we can summarise what they say into the article. We don't need to update our text hourly to keep pace with rumours or anything like that. --Nigelj (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I confess I didn't see it the way Dorsal Axe did. But nonetheless, you seem to be right, given the fact that (1) WHATWG is nothing official itself (and we must see the W3C's reaction,) and (2) the fact that I don't remember anyone using version numbers to refer to W3C standard HTML before, except when it was the matter of DOCTYPE strings. Fleet Command (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I too agree to let this play out a bit before making rather radical changes to articles. However, I wonder what qualifies as a "reliable source", if those don't: [[9]][[10]] Also, I don't agree that the WHATWG is "nothing official": After all, it is the reason for HTML5, and thus this article, to even exist in the first place. But, yes, the relationship between the W3C and the WHATWG remains a bit, for lack of a better word, obscure. --Takimata (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I found a link for a logo http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anish9807 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did you find it? On the article page? --Takimata (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)