Talk:HTML5

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)

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)

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))