Talk:HTML5

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.

Requested move

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)

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)

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>

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)