Talk:HTML5

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HTML5 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 31 days

Template:Vital article

Computing: Software C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Internet C‑class High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Semantic HTML on August 2014. The result of the discussion was not merge.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

NPOV dispute

The section "Distinction between W3C's HTML5 and WHATWG's HTML" contains personal names and looks very aggressive. Please, refactor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1458:204:1:0:0:101:E1AC (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHATWG claims W3C's HTML5 is a "fork" of theirs and not authoritative

I'm on one of WHATWG's mailing lists. I raised an issue of the long-standing and frequently bug-reported conflict between the W3C spec for the <cite>...</cite> element and WHATWG's. I was told:

"You may be interested in the history here. W3C 'HTML5' is actually forked from the WHATWG HTML Standard; your claim that the W3C version is in some way authoritative or 'full', or that the WHATWG is redefining things, doesn’t really fit with the facts. See things like https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 or https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_the_difference_between_the_w3c_and_the/ . In fact, if you read up, you’ll see that W3C fork is not only based on the HTML Standard, but periodically copies and pastes from it" ... "[WHATWG] certainly don’t write the specification based on [W3C's], and I don't think it's fair to call us 'unresponsive' if we don't update [ours], given that [theirs] is an unauthoritative source that we don't control or consult. In contrast, we're pretty responsive to actual bugs reported against the content of [our] spec" ... "It’s true that certain W3C editors have, over the years, redefined certain elements in ways that match how they like to write their personal documents. ... [I]t’s best to treat this [i.e., W3C having a different definition of the <cite> element] just as if any other person had decided to redefine an element for their own usage, e.g. how Twitter Bootstrap redefined <i> to mean 'icon'. It’s against the HTML Standard, and writing it down in a forked document and being appointed 'editor' by the forking organization doesn’t really make that redefinition authoritative or 'correct'. (Neither does 'real-world usage'; again, if that was the criteria, we would redefine <i> to mean icon, given how many pages use it that way.)"

This clearly does not jibe with what we have written here. I'm wondering if our material is complete/correct, or if I'm being fed a bunch of subjective and inaccurate spin. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Not moved. There is a fairly clear consensus against the proposed move at this time. bd2412 T 18:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5 → HTML 5HTML 5 – Updating article title to match the article contents which state that HTML 5 is now the correct name. Dónal O'Flynn (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do reliable sources treat "HTML5" as one word? ONR (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not anymore. See the very first reference in the article Dónal O'Flynn (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the WP:OFFICIAL name has been changed by the World Wide Web Consortium. However, the WP:COMMONNAME may not yet have fallen in line with that. Ordinarily, when a company changes its name or the naming rights to a sports venue are sold, I figure that "reliable sources" will go along, but in cases like this, it may not be that easy to quickly change a widely adopted name. I search for "HTML 5" and Google asks me, "Did you mean: HTML5". None of these have switched to the new name yet:

On the other hand, there's the MOS:TM argument. Per this blog posting, "Calling HTML 5 “HTML5” is inconsistent and grammatically wrong." As he points out, this blog argues that "Sometimes people kept writing “HTML5” and sometimes “HTML 5” (even on whatwg.org). This kind of inconsistency is bad for branding", which seems to me the quintessential argument for adding the space, per Wikipedia's manual of style for trademarks. HTML 5, often stylized HTML5... Leaning support. wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just because HTML 5.2 is called HTML 5.2 does not mean that HTML5 is not called HTML5. It's not the same. wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per support arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamy Jazz (talk • contribs) 20:20, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Reliable sources in the article still use HTML5. Calling it "HTML 5" because "HTML 5.2" has a space is WP:OR. See WP:COMMONNAME. Brad v 14:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Is the "Cleanup" to-do done?

The to-do list above includes "Cleanup : Distinction between W3C's HTML5 and WHATWG's HTML". Has this item been accomplished by the addition of the table in the new section Differences between the two standards? Ennex2 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filename extension in infobox

The main infobox on the article page says the file extension is ".html", with the ".html" in a little box. I tried editing it to add "or .htm", but I don't see way to put the ".htm" in a separate box with the "or" outside the boxes. So I thought I would ask here how to do this (or someone else to do it), rather than make that change, which would be technically incorrect. (It would mean that there is one extension, ".html or .htm".) --Ennex2 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just noticed that in the second infobox, for XHTML5, the value box for file extension contains ".xhtml, .html". So I'm going to go ahead and change that in the first infobox to ".html, .htm". --Ennex2 (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]