![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
From HTML5 to HTML 5 as in W3C documents. 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)
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).
Re-open, since HTML5 is now the accepted spelling. http://blog.whatwg.org/spelling-html5 -- itpastorn ( talk) 20:39, 15 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)
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)
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:
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)
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))
-- Sjgibbs ( talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (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)
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)
<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: [1]
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.
![]() | This article may be
confusing or unclear to readers. (March 2009) |
There is agreement between the vendors that a "baseline" codec of some form is needed: a codec everyone will be able to access. [2] Besides Vorbis and Theora, H.261, H.264, AAC and MP3 were mentioned. [3] 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, [4] 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. [5]
</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)
I see who opposed it, but who brought it up in the first place?
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.
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)
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)
"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)
Isn't it supposed to be named HTML/XHTML 5? Jupiter.solarsyst. comm.arm.milk .universe 01:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Ormaaj ( talk) 12:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
XHTML5 don't need a article of it own at list for now. Srinivasasha ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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?
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 think the section should be deleted due to the likelihood of attracting promotional cruft. — Darxus ( talk) 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. But .xml is a filename extension for HTML5? Regards, PeterEasthope ( talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (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)
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)
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)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)
apple-ogg
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
From HTML5 to HTML 5 as in W3C documents. 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)
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).
Re-open, since HTML5 is now the accepted spelling. http://blog.whatwg.org/spelling-html5 -- itpastorn ( talk) 20:39, 15 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)
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)
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:
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)
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))
-- Sjgibbs ( talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (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)
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)
<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: [1]
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.
![]() | This article may be
confusing or unclear to readers. (March 2009) |
There is agreement between the vendors that a "baseline" codec of some form is needed: a codec everyone will be able to access. [2] Besides Vorbis and Theora, H.261, H.264, AAC and MP3 were mentioned. [3] 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, [4] 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. [5]
</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)
I see who opposed it, but who brought it up in the first place?
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.
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)
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)
"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)
Isn't it supposed to be named HTML/XHTML 5? Jupiter.solarsyst. comm.arm.milk .universe 01:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Ormaaj ( talk) 12:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
XHTML5 don't need a article of it own at list for now. Srinivasasha ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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?
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 think the section should be deleted due to the likelihood of attracting promotional cruft. — Darxus ( talk) 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. But .xml is a filename extension for HTML5? Regards, PeterEasthope ( talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (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)
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)
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)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)
apple-ogg
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)