RE: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 8:37 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0 Paul Ross wrote: I was there at the WSG Sydney meeting last Thursday and was very interested to hear Lachlan Hunt (the tallest WSG member according to Russ) talking about the Future of HTML. Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. :-) Lachlan's talk raised a lot of questions (which I wished I'd asked at the meeting but felt like a noob at the time). HTML 5 was new to most people at the meeting, there's no need to feel like a noob when everyone else around is too. :-) Is this a fork in the specs road or a standards war in the making? No, I wouldn't call it a standards war, the major browser vendors have already unanimously decided what they will be implementing. It is a minor fork in the road, but it's not a big issue since the other alternative is a dead end. XHTML 2.0 is effectively dead and is relatively safe to ignore. HTML 5 is the most relevant spec. In many ways, it's already far more relevant than HTML 4.01. There are numerous, significant problems with XHTML 2.0, which make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement interoperably in the real world. Although, we recognise the fact that there are some features in XHTML 2 that people like, and many of them have already been incorporated in, or being considered for, HTML5. Hi Lachlan, Over at Apache Forrest, our next version of the Web Publishing Framework is to be based around XHTML 2.0. For this reason alone, I would like to quote to the members your message Above. Can I do that ? If yes would you rather it be to a public or Private list. Thanks. Gav... If anyone is interested in learning more about, or getting involved with, HTML5, there are several things that you can do. Read the blog, FAQ or wiki; ask questions in the forum, #whatwg on IRC or the new whatwg help mailing list; or read the specs and contribute to the main mailing list. More information about these is available from the WHATWG home page. http://whatwg.org/ -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 2/10/2007 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
Gav wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: There are numerous, significant problems with XHTML 2.0, which make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement interoperably in the real world... Hi Lachlan, Over at Apache Forrest, our next version of the Web Publishing Framework is to be based around XHTML 2.0. For this reason alone, I would like to quote to the members your message Above. Can I do that ? Sure. There's no need to ask permission for that. If yes would you rather it be to a public or Private list. I don't mind. You could just send them a link to the copy in the WSG archive, which is already public. http://mail-archive.com/listdad@webstandardsgroup.org/msg08110.html This other comment of mine mentions a few other issues with XHTML 2.0 that might be useful for you. http://www.robertnyman.com/2007/02/05/html-5-or-xhtml-2/#comment-34198 If you need any more information, let me know. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
Adrian Lynch wrote: Can you clarify how 'parallel' the development of HTML5 and XHTML5 is? Are they developed in step or is there a lag between one spec being updated? They're in the same spec, so they're developed at the same time. HTML and XHTML aren't really separate languages, but rather different syntaxes for the same language. HTML5 is being defined in terms of the DOM, rather than the syntax. So that both HTML and XHTML share the same elements and semantics, and in most cases, either serialisation can be used to represent the same document. Although there are some exceptions caused by the different parsing requirements. e.g. noscript can only be used in HTML, not in XHTML; other namespaces (xmlns=) can be used in XHTML, but not in HTML, etc. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
On 2/13/07, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're in the same spec, so they're developed at the same time. HTML and XHTML aren't really separate languages, but rather different syntaxes for the same language. Ah OK that's brilliant - takes away all my 'fears' of the (x)HTML5 vs XHTML2 issue. I had been assuming (as it sounds a few people had in this thread) that the next 'step' could be to XHTML2 - and the thought of (X)HTML5 was a bit of a concern (especially for those knee deep in XSLT). Knowing that XHTML5 is developed in the same spec means that we can push forward with our XSLT based workflows, and simply adjust to suit once XHTML5 is supported at the browser level. -- Adrian Lynch *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
Paul Ross wrote: I was there at the WSG Sydney meeting last Thursday and was very interested to hear Lachlan Hunt (the tallest WSG member according to Russ) talking about the Future of HTML. Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. :-) Lachlan's talk raised a lot of questions (which I wished I'd asked at the meeting but felt like a noob at the time). HTML 5 was new to most people at the meeting, there's no need to feel like a noob when everyone else around is too. :-) Is this a fork in the specs road or a standards war in the making? No, I wouldn't call it a standards war, the major browser vendors have already unanimously decided what they will be implementing. It is a minor fork in the road, but it's not a big issue since the other alternative is a dead end. XHTML 2.0 is effectively dead and is relatively safe to ignore. HTML 5 is the most relevant spec. In many ways, it's already far more relevant than HTML 4.01. There are numerous, significant problems with XHTML 2.0, which make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement interoperably in the real world. Although, we recognise the fact that there are some features in XHTML 2 that people like, and many of them have already been incorporated in, or being considered for, HTML5. If anyone is interested in learning more about, or getting involved with, HTML5, there are several things that you can do. Read the blog, FAQ or wiki; ask questions in the forum, #whatwg on IRC or the new whatwg help mailing list; or read the specs and contribute to the main mailing list. More information about these is available from the WHATWG home page. http://whatwg.org/ -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
Thanks to all you who replied. I think the most useful was this: On 27/01/07, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People have gone through what you went through and many of them have done the same thing: go back to HTML 4.01. My reasons for going for xHTML were thanks to Zeldman's book on designing to standards. This was easy for me to keep up until recently when I began to team up with an asp scripter who has issues with using amp; and the other causes of invalidation. I feared that using html4 might be detrimental to the web standards movement for some unknown-to-me reason. Based on your advice I'll chill out, and keep my eye on HTML5. Thanks again. :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
What impact does this have on people who have just made the transistion to xHTML 1 like me? For now, nothing. In future there should be a better option than XHTML 1, but it's not here yet. I'm an avid supporter of the web standards and have been guiding many in the ways of xHTML and validating... but it seems the issue is becoming ever more complicated, rather than clearer, as time goes by. Rather than having one standard to follow, there seems to be more and more standards. Personally I feel like despite my best efforts to be a good web designer, its becoming ever more troublesome and I'm finding myself spending more time trying to keep on the ball than actually working and earning a living. I wouldn't get too worried here... we're only talking about two alternatives :) I think it's likely that one or the other will emerge as the accepted standard, then you'll have the choice of moving to that standard as your build standard. Remember you only use one at a time, regardless of how many there are out there. If you can make the transition from building valid HTML 4 to valid XHTML 1, then you have most likely picked up a good understanding of the differences. To do that, you've developed the ability to read specs and use tools to help you build to a standard. Those skills are transportable - you will know the principles of how to read the next spec, and how to use the next validator. So if and when you decide to build to a different standard, you'll know what it is you're doing. Just a thought, anyway :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
I was there at the WSG Sydney meeting last Thursday and was very interested to hear Lachlan Hunt (the tallest WSG member according to Russ) talking about the Future of HTML. Here's where I have to admit I must have been living under a stone for a while because I'd never heard of HTML 5 until that evening and talking to some of the folks after the meeting they hadn't either. Lachlan's talk raised a lot of questions (which I wished I'd asked at the meeting but felt like a noob at the time). I've done some research online since but the archives of this list seem to have more knowledgable people on the subject. What I don't get is the HTML 5 (Web Applications 1.0) seems to be a competing standard to those proposed by the W3C. Thishttp://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml1/article for example states: The W3C promotes XHTML 2.0, based on the requirements of a broad vendor base -- not just desktop browser makers. XHTML 2.0 is seen as a radical step. In contrast, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) promotes a set of incremental specifications, which evolve HTML to add the most immediately required functionality into the browser. While no standards war has erupted yet on the scale that brought HTML into the W3C in the first place, these two organizations are not always in agreement as to where HTML should go. Is this a fork in the specs road or a standards war in the making? It would be great to bounce this off the WSG cogniscienti and help me (and maybe others?) get a grasp of what is going on here. Regards PAUL ROSS SkyRocket Design Co http://www.skyrocket.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
Well, there is a big difference between XHTML HTML, so, I think both XHTML 2.0 and HTML 5 will be widely used. Personally, I don't think that W3C will make something like 'standards war'... 2007/1/27, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I was there at the WSG Sydney meeting last Thursday and was very interested to hear Lachlan Hunt (the tallest WSG member according to Russ) talking about the Future of HTML. Here's where I have to admit I must have been living under a stone for a while because I'd never heard of HTML 5 until that evening and talking to some of the folks after the meeting they hadn't either. Lachlan's talk raised a lot of questions (which I wished I'd asked at the meeting but felt like a noob at the time). I've done some research online since but the archives of this list seem to have more knowledgable people on the subject. What I don't get is the HTML 5 (Web Applications 1.0) seems to be a competing standard to those proposed by the W3C. Thishttp://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml1/article for example states: The W3C promotes XHTML 2.0, based on the requirements of a broad vendor base -- not just desktop browser makers. XHTML 2.0 is seen as a radical step. In contrast, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) promotes a set of incremental specifications, which evolve HTML to add the most immediately required functionality into the browser. While no standards war has erupted yet on the scale that brought HTML into the W3C in the first place, these two organizations are not always in agreement as to where HTML should go. Is this a fork in the specs road or a standards war in the making? It would be great to bounce this off the WSG cogniscienti and help me (and maybe others?) get a grasp of what is going on here. Regards PAUL ROSS SkyRocket Design Co http://www.skyrocket.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Love and Light, Vladislav. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:09:40PM +1100, Paul Ross wrote: What I don't get is the HTML 5 (Web Applications 1.0) seems to be a competing standard to those proposed by the W3C. A couple of useful bits of reading are: http://whatwg.org/ (the very last section on the homepage) and http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166 -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
On 1/27/07, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this a fork in the specs road or a standards war in the making? It would be great to bounce this off the WSG cogniscienti and help me (and maybe others?) get a grasp of what is going on here. W3C went too far in their ambitions with XHTML2. They decided to throw away the good with the bad and make a single, huge change to HTML (including a full replacement of the SGML/Tagsoup foundation by XML with draconian error handling) that is in many ways incompatible with current HTML. The result is a too time consuming process to produce a specification of a language that is so different that none of the current user agents for HTML, whether browsers, editors, spiders etc. can add it's features without major changes. XHTML2 if it were to get finished today it would be DOA as there's not a single browser and to my knowledge no editing tools that even considers supporting it at the moment. The fact that it's still a WD and nowhere near becoming a standard right now indeed makes it a bad idea for implementors currently. But in a future with browser and editor support for generic XML and custom XML applications that is much stronger than the current situation, XHTML2 might eventually displace HTML. You must understand, XHTML2 is a different language than HTML, it will compete with HTML - not a specific version of HTML such as HTML5 or HTML4.01, but HTML as a sloppy error recovered document language in general - as well as with XHTML for filling the same role, with the forced draconian error handling of XML and with different semantics from HTML/XHTML. HTML5 on the other hand is developed in an open process supported by the browser makers themselves (except Microsoft) and is meant to be an evolution of HTML rather than a replacement. It doesn't require major changes, it only adds on top of the current HTML standard. It tries to standardise things that were never standardised before such as parser error recovery. Parts of it are already implemented in several browsers. XHTML2 and HTML5 are not at the moment competitors. XHTML2 isn't on the horizon yet, but HTML5 is in sight. If anything, what's happening is that HTML5 will succeed HTML4.01 as the current HTML standard in a few years. When mature enough, XHTML2 may become an alternative to the then current HTML, whichever version that is. But XHTML2 has always been a whole new technology trying to replace HTML. HTML5 is instead an evolution, an upgrade, of an aging HTML specification. Oh, and HTML5 will probably become a W3C specification, if HTML WG and WhatWG cooperation works out: uri:http://www.w3.org/2006/11/HTML-WG-charter.html -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
Nice writeup David. I realize that W3C have big plans but both XHTML2 and HTML5 but they're 'working drafts' for more than 5 years... Personally, I think if HTML5 will be released in 3-4 years it will be very good. As for XHTML2 I think it'll take more than 5 years more... It makes me mad... 2007/1/27, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 1/27/07, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this a fork in the specs road or a standards war in the making? It would be great to bounce this off the WSG cogniscienti and help me (and maybe others?) get a grasp of what is going on here. W3C went too far in their ambitions with XHTML2. They decided to throw away the good with the bad and make a single, huge change to HTML (including a full replacement of the SGML/Tagsoup foundation by XML with draconian error handling) that is in many ways incompatible with current HTML. The result is a too time consuming process to produce a specification of a language that is so different that none of the current user agents for HTML, whether browsers, editors, spiders etc. can add it's features without major changes. XHTML2 if it were to get finished today it would be DOA as there's not a single browser and to my knowledge no editing tools that even considers supporting it at the moment. The fact that it's still a WD and nowhere near becoming a standard right now indeed makes it a bad idea for implementors currently. But in a future with browser and editor support for generic XML and custom XML applications that is much stronger than the current situation, XHTML2 might eventually displace HTML. You must understand, XHTML2 is a different language than HTML, it will compete with HTML - not a specific version of HTML such as HTML5 or HTML4.01, but HTML as a sloppy error recovered document language in general - as well as with XHTML for filling the same role, with the forced draconian error handling of XML and with different semantics from HTML/XHTML. HTML5 on the other hand is developed in an open process supported by the browser makers themselves (except Microsoft) and is meant to be an evolution of HTML rather than a replacement. It doesn't require major changes, it only adds on top of the current HTML standard. It tries to standardise things that were never standardised before such as parser error recovery. Parts of it are already implemented in several browsers. XHTML2 and HTML5 are not at the moment competitors. XHTML2 isn't on the horizon yet, but HTML5 is in sight. If anything, what's happening is that HTML5 will succeed HTML4.01 as the current HTML standard in a few years. When mature enough, XHTML2 may become an alternative to the then current HTML, whichever version that is. But XHTML2 has always been a whole new technology trying to replace HTML. HTML5 is instead an evolution, an upgrade, of an aging HTML specification. Oh, and HTML5 will probably become a W3C specification, if HTML WG and WhatWG cooperation works out: uri:http://www.w3.org/2006/11/HTML-WG-charter.html -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Love and Light, Vladislav. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
What impact does this have on people who have just made the transistion to xHTML 1 like me? I'm an avid supporter of the web standards and have been guiding many in the ways of xHTML and validating... but it seems the issue is becoming ever more complicated, rather than clearer, as time goes by. Rather than having one standard to follow, there seems to be more and more standards. Personally I feel like despite my best efforts to be a good web designer, its becoming ever more troublesome and I'm finding myself spending more time trying to keep on the ball than actually working and earning a living. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
On 1/27/07, Duncan Stigwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What impact does this have on people who have just made the transistion to xHTML 1 like me? I'm an avid supporter of the web standards and have been guiding many in the ways of xHTML and validating... but it seems the issue is becoming ever more complicated, rather than clearer, as time goes by. Rather than having one standard to follow, there seems to be more and more standards. Personally I feel like despite my best efforts to be a good web designer, its becoming ever more troublesome and I'm finding myself spending more time trying to keep on the ball than actually working and earning a living. People have gone through what you went through and many of them have done the same thing: go back to HTML 4.01. Let's be honest... by the time XHTML 2.0 becomes a reality we probably still won't have universal browser support for XHTML rendering. It's possible to serve XHTML to compliant browsers and HTML to IE, but there aren't any real benefits from using XHTML. XHTML is not for day to day web design that you hand over to your tech-illiterate clients and when you are serving it as text/html you are just writing XHTML that looks like HTML 4.01 to the browser. You could keep serving XHTML 1.0 websites and you would probably never see any negative consequences come from it, but someway along the road we'll have an updated version of HTML with new tags to learn and a totally new implementation of XHTML where we will have to learn everything all over again. It is a disappointing situation right now but at least there is work being done on all fronts. My $0.02: I'm looking forward to HTML 5 more. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Standards War - HTML 5 vs XHTML 2.0
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:30:46PM +, Duncan Stigwood wrote: What impact does this have on people who have just made the transistion to xHTML 1 like me? Not a lot. XHTML 1 is pretty pointless for authoring webpages in[1] (its more useful for other things such as ATOM documents), and the (previously mentioned) changes in XHTML 2 are so major that the upgrade path from XHTML 1 was never going to be significantly easier then from HTML 4.01. I believe there is an HTML 5 as XML spec somewhere. I'm an avid supporter of the web standards and have been guiding many in the ways of xHTML and validating... but it seems the issue is becoming ever more complicated, rather than clearer, as time goes by. More complicated? Well, using multiple namespaces has always been complicated, but each namespace you add allows you to do more things. If you don't need to do them, then don't use that namespace. If you do need to do them then complication is probably a better state of affairs then you can't. As for HTML 5, well, it does more stuff, so its bigger, and therefore more complicated. It also disambiguates a bunch of stuff in HTML 4, so in some ways it is simpler too. Personally I feel like despite my best efforts to be a good web designer, its becoming ever more troublesome and I'm finding myself spending more time trying to keep on the ball than actually working and earning a living. With all[2] the new standards you basically have three choices: (1) Wait until they are finished and implemented then decide if they add something useful to you. Reading the occasional spec is not a lot of work, and you can usually recognise something as being outside the realm of what you need to know within a couple fo paragraphs. (2) Join in the development process. This is rather more work, but you may be able to influence the direction of the spec for the better. [1] Appendix C, oh the pain. [2] So that's SVG, MathML, HTML 5 and XHTML 2 as far as current/recent significant developmentss are concerned. That's 4 major specs, none of which are well supported yet, and those which are finished have been available for over a year - it isn't like there's a rush between their release and their being something useful to learn. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
