WHATWG Blog

This change to requiring attribution is actually fairly recent, and was made with some reluctance on the part of us editors, despite eventually agreeing it was the best path forward. See https://blog.whatwg.org/copyright-license-change

"In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing DRM technologies to be developed at the W3C is just a naked ploy for the W3C to get more (paying) member companies to join"[0] 0 - https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security

There's a deeper issue here that needs to be addressed. Consider the following review: https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/wiki/Editor There are well over 30 WYSIWYG editors that (fail to) normalize the differences between browsers to provide a consistent text editing experience. Much of this duplicated effort would be better directed at reviewing, publishing, and updating a standard draft for editable, browser-based content. https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable Even though Squire isn't meant as a drop-in replacement for web page editing, it still suffers from the same endemic issue that plagues all editors: browser inconsistency.

People have been focusing on the noscript tag, but I rather like the idea of something in the head that disables all javascript in body. One good idea is perhaps better than one good idea followed by one bad idea, especially when the history is already full of so many horrible ideas that got into the spec. ;) But there's also already something in html5; the iframe sandbox attribute. Among other things it can be used to disallow scripts to run in an iframe. You can read about it here. Amusingly, they suggest it may be available for widespread use in 10 years. http://blog.whatwg.org/whats-next-in-html-episode-2-sandbox

There's recently been a round of debate about whether the alt attribute for media (eg, <img alt="Foo">) should remain required or could become optional. As I understand it, some web page creators say "some of our images don't have good logical, human-readable alt text, so why make us put in alt attributes with crappy made-up values", and other people argue that it is worth the extra effort to improve accessibility. (No doubt I've butchered both sides of the argument, but that's what I was able to take away from it.) See http://blog.whatwg.org/omit-alt for an argument in favor of making it optional, and http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html for it being required, or http://juicystudio.com/article/requiring-alt-attribute-html5.php for a list of pros and cons. The two standards groups hosting the draft HTML specs appear to have different centers of gravity with regard to this issue, and to be making increasingly snippy comments back and forth about the other's handling of the dispute.

<html contenteditable> has existed since IE 5.5, and was standardized in the first version of HTML5. https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable

WhatWG has a fairly well documented process for feature requests. Issues are not usually decided in closed meetings. But there’s a difference between constructive discussion and the stubborn shameless entitlement that some members of the community are displaying in their comments. https://blog.whatwg.org/staged-proposals-at-the-whatwg

That the W3C wasn't a useful bastion against DRM is an understatement. It was the main driving force. WHATWG, on the other hand, appears to have opposed it. https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security So what purpose did the W3C serve? Transforming user agents into entertainment industry agents, I guess.

> HTML5 defaults to UTF-8 I’m not sure this is correct, though the WHATWG docs[1] are kind of confusing. From what I can tell, it seems like HTML5 documents are required to be UTF-8, but also this is required to be explicitly declared either in the Content-Type header, a leading BOM, or a <meta> tag in the first 1024 bytes of the file. Reading this blog post[2] it sounds like there is a danger that if you don’t do this then heuristics will kick in and try to guess the charset instead; the documented algorithm for this doesn't seem to consider the doctype at all. [1]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/dev/semantics.html#charset [2]: https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-character-encoding

The WHATWG and the W3C have been moving in a very different direction, treating testing as a major part of spec development, because the goal is to get implementations of the specifications, and how do you determine that if not by testing. https://blog.whatwg.org/improving-interoperability is a post from the WHATWG side about this, and the outcome isn't just the direct "it's easier to write code against tests" but also "it's easier to notice when the spec changes" (because you now get a failing test).

WHATWG did not include EME in the WHATWG HTML living standard, and supported EFF's proposal to protect security researchers: https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security Ian Hickson also came out strongly against DRM when this whole debate started: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2

HTML progresses without using version numbers. Perhaps, in general, we don't need them.. https://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

> Contrast that with the agreed-upon work in the WHATWG HTML Living Standard discussed at https://blog.whatwg.org/js-modules, which is relatively finalized and is being actively implemented now in all browser engines. Just to clarify, unlike TC39, the WHATWG HTML ("Living Standard") spec requires no consensus at all in order to add new features. Consensus is arrived at once all implementers have implemented the relevant features to the stable versions of their browsers. To say that what is in the spec has consensus at the same time as browser implementers are beginning implementation (and expressing some concern over details) gets the WHATWG process backwards.

to downvoters: it was not against Atom, it was about the current state of contentEditable API: * http://caniuse.com/#search=contenteditable * http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/execCommand.html (and more info: https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable ) Example editor: http://neilj.github.io/Squire/

Well, this announcement seems to indicate that from W3C's point of view, it's not living anymore. They've finalized the standard, and are starting work on HTML 5.1. WHATWG apparently no longer numbers their standard. [1] 1) https://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

Apparently, you can still write polyglot documents that are both valid XHTML and HTML5.[1] But this requires closing void tags with <tag />. [1] http://blog.whatwg.org/xhtml5-in-a-nutshell

Browser developers care about being “WhatWG compliant”, because the WhatWG HTML group is composed by browser editors, they work with the W3C HTML5 group, and the HTML5 specification is based on the WhatWG’s HTML document. Read this if you need more clarifications: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jul/0119… http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

Why not call it a living standard? http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

As the WHATWG clearly states, HTML5 is a living standard, and evolving constantly. W3C likes to have solid specs and therefore freezes it and gives it a name. Its nothing more than tagging a certain timepoint with a version number. I prefer the living standard. However, giving it a version name makes it easier to comunicate about sometimes. This blog posts makes it much clearer: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-and-html5

For convenience, the complete HTML5 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/ ...and the complete Canvas2D spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-2dcontext-20121217/ Personally, I'm not sure how to reconcile a "feature complete" specification with the notion that HTML5 is (ostensibly) a "living document" (http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5).

some background info: http://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable

Something similar is happening to HTML5 in the W3C: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-and-html5

There will be no HTML6, etc. Just HTML HTML is the new HTML5 http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

Seems like you must recheck others ignorance: http://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable#history Also you can see latest commits about it. Or you want a comment saying: contentEditable was working since Google Chrome x.y.z.d, Mozilla Firefox a.b.c.d, Opera t.y.u.i, unknown browser p.l.m.n, etc?

The fun fact is that contentEditable/designMode was first introduced in IE 5.5. http://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable

"The next version of HTML doesn't have a name yet. In fact, it may never have a name, because the working group is switching to an unversioned development model. Various parts of the specification will be at varying degrees of stability, as noted in each section. But if all goes according to plan, there will never be One Big Cutoff that is frozen in time and dubbed "HTML6." HTML is an unbroken line stretching back almost two decades, and version numbers are a vestige of an older development model for standards that never really matched reality very well anyway. HTML5 is so last week." http://blog.whatwg.org/whats-next-in-html-episode-1

It's not my statement it came from Mark Pilgrim. You can check it out here http://blog.whatwg.org/whats-next-in-html-episode-1

http://blog.whatwg.org/this-week-in-html5-episode-35 states: "Adrian Bateman did what no man or woman had ever done before: he gave substantive feedback on the current editor's draft of HTML5 on behalf of Microsoft." OK, so apparently I misread that. Does that justify a -1 down mod?

Original article on WHATWG blog: http://blog.whatwg.org/this-week-in-html5-episode-35

> It’s not a global `print` function that’s called but `window.print`, right? `print` is sugar for `this.print` and `this` is the window object if it’s not explicitly bound to something else. This is a common point of confusion because in a browser the global object is traditionally the same as window (or “self” or “frames”) so there wasn't a difference for many years until ES5 introduced strict mode, which left the default as undefined instead of silently using the global object, and things further fractured with Node (where it's “global”) and Web Workers (where only “self” works). (In browsers this is also complicated by the Window/WindowProxy distinction — see https://blog.whatwg.org/windowproxy-window-and-location and especially https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/globalthis#terminology) A couple years back, “globalThis” was added to make it easier to write portable code across different environments without having to check various names: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-global I don't think is not a particularly JavaScript-specific issue because any language which inherits scope can have the problem of a symbol not matching what you expected, which is why the ones which don't have compile-time checking tend to use linters which will report use of things which haven't been explicitly declared (not mention shadowing built-in names). If you want to blame JavaScript, the feature which would have made this more obvious would have been not ignoring extra arguments –…