The Fight Over HTML5

2,031
-1

Published on

A little insight into standards bodies bickering and politics. Is HTML5 is dead? What about that logo? Are we to refer to it as “HTML5″ as the WC3 says or “HTML” as the WHATWG says? When will it be ready? How can we work with no version number?

Published in: Technology, Design
1 Comment
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,031
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
42
Comments
1
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • The Fight Over HTML5

    1. 1. The Fight Over HTML5 Are we to refer to it as HTML5 as the WC3 says or HTML as the WHATWG says?by Mike WilcoxMarch 2011
    2. 2. January 17th, 2011
    3. 3. January 17th, 2011 HTML5 Grows Up and Gets a Shiny New Logo
    4. 4. January 17th, 2011 HTML5 Grows Up and Gets a Shiny New Logo
    5. 5. New Logo! What’s Good
    6. 6. New Logo! What’s Good It shows the W3C is actually paying some attention to what is going on outside of their little world.
    7. 7. New Logo! What’s Good It shows the W3C is actually paying some attention to what is going on outside of their little world. W3C raises awareness for themselves.
    8. 8. New Logo! What’s Good It shows the W3C is actually paying some attention to what is going on outside of their little world. W3C raises awareness for themselves. I can use the logo in my presentations.
    9. 9. New Logo! What’s Good It shows the W3C is actually paying some attention to what is going on outside of their little world. W3C raises awareness for themselves. I can use the logo in my presentations. It comes with more logos!
    10. 10. New Logo! What’s Good It shows the W3C is actually paying some attention to what is going on outside of their little world. W3C raises awareness for themselves. I can use the logo in my presentations. It comes with more logos!
    11. 11. New Logo! What’s Bad
    12. 12. New Logo! What’s Bad We need a logo? Theres no logo for CSS, JavaScript, or XML.
    13. 13. New Logo! What’s Bad We need a logo? Theres no logo for CSS, JavaScript, or XML. W3C raises awareness for themselves.
    14. 14. New Logo! What’s Bad We need a logo? Theres no logo for CSS, JavaScript, or XML. W3C raises awareness for themselves. Flash doesnt even have a logo. The IDE does, but AS3 doesnt.
    15. 15. New Logo! What’s Bad We need a logo? Theres no logo for CSS, JavaScript, or XML. W3C raises awareness for themselves. Flash doesnt even have a logo. The IDE does, but AS3 doesnt. Hey! Some of those sub-logos have nothing to do with HTML5!
    16. 16. New Logo
    17. 17. New Logo By the way, nobody asked me but...
    18. 18. New Logo By the way, nobody asked me but...Designed by Occupop inHawaiiPrice: $10 billionTime: 12 years
    19. 19. New Logo By the way, nobody asked me but... Done by Mike WilcoxDesigned by Occupop inHawaii Price: $0.00 Time: 15 minutesPrice: $10 billionTime: 12 years
    20. 20. January 19th, 2011
    21. 21. January 19th, 2011 The WHATWG announces that HTML5 will no longer exist.
    22. 22. January 19th, 2011 2 da ys later The WHATWG announces that HTML5 will no longer exist.
    23. 23. January 19th, 2011 2 da ys later The WHATWG announces that HTML5 will no longer exist. HTML5
    24. 24. January 19th, 2011 2 da ys later The WHATWG announces that HTML5 will no longer exist. ick son Ia nH HTML5
    25. 25. January 19th, 2011 2 da ys later The WHATWG announces that HTML5 will no longer exist. ick son Ia nH The specification will be known as “HTML” HTML5
    26. 26. January 19th, 2011 2 da ys later The WHATWG announces that HTML5 will no longer exist. ick son Ia nH The specification will be known as “HTML” No more deadlines. It will be a LIVING SPEC. HTML5
    27. 27. Versionitus
    28. 28. Versionitus Outrage ensues.
    29. 29. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5?
    30. 30. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never!
    31. 31. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never! If the spec is never finalized we can never use it!!
    32. 32. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never! If the spec is never finalized we can never use it!! How will browsers ever implement a moving target?
    33. 33. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never! If the spec is never finalized we can never use it!! How will browsers ever implement a moving target? When will it ever be safe to use HTML5?
    34. 34. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never! If the spec is never finalized we can never use it!! How will browsers ever implement a moving target? When will it ever be safe to use HTML5? HTML will become an unusable mess!
    35. 35. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never! If the spec is never finalized we can never use it!! How will browsers ever implement a moving target? When will it ever be safe to use HTML5? HTML will become an unusable mess! If you do not publish snapshots every now and again, you are Orwellian in your recognition of the role the mistakes of the past play into the present and the future.
    36. 36. Versionitus Outrage ensues. Can we still use the term HTML5? 2022 was bad enough, now it’s never! If the spec is never finalized we can never use it!! How will browsers ever implement a moving target? When will it ever be safe to use HTML5? HTML will become an unusable mess! If you do not publish snapshots every now and again, you are Orwellian in your recognition of the role the mistakes of the past play into the present and the future. Someone really said that on th WHATWG blog e
    37. 37. The W3C Backtrack
    38. 38. The W3C Backtrack
    39. 39. The W3C Backtrack " This is no t the offic ial logo ye t"
    40. 40. The W3C Backtrack " This is no t the offic ial logo ye t"FAQ:Q:! Are a ll those technologyfeatures de fine d in the HTML5specification?A: !No, not all of them.
    41. 41. The W3C Backtrack " This is no t the offic ial logo ye t"FAQ:Q:! Are a ll those technologyfeatures de fine d in the HTML5 W3C w ill cont inue to usespecification? "Open Web Platform" asA: !No, not all of them. well [as HTML5], an d we may have a corresponding logo.
    42. 42. The W3C Backtrack " This is no t the offic ial logo ye t"FAQ:Q:! Are a ll those technologyfeatures de fine d in the HTML5 W3C w ill cont inue to usespecification? "Open Web Platform" asA: !No, not all of them. well [as HTML5], an d we may have a corresponding logo. Ian Jacobs Head of W3C Marketing and Communications
    43. 43. and then...
    44. 44. February 14, 2011
    45. 45. February 14, 2011 28 d ays later
    46. 46. February 14, 2011 28 d ays later The W3C announces that HTML5 will be done in 2014.
    47. 47. February 14, 2011 28 d ays later The W3C announces that HTML5 will be done in 2014. Okay. It’s DONE.
    48. 48. February 14, 2011 28 d ays later The W3C announces that HTML5 will be done in 2014. Developers, it’s safe to use it Okay. It’s now. DONE.
    49. 49. February 14, 2011 28 d ays later The W3C announces that HTML5 will be done in 2014. Developers, it’s safe to use it Okay. It’s now. DONE.Last Call:MAY!!?!
    50. 50. Developers Rejoice!
    51. 51. Developers Rejoice! ...or do they?
    52. 52. What’s Missing
    53. 53. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut.
    54. 54. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec
    55. 55. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking
    56. 56. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking Multiple video sources
    57. 57. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking Multiple video sources Multiple audio sources
    58. 58. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking Multiple video sources Multiple audio sources External Closed Caption XML file (SRT)
    59. 59. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking Multiple video sources Multiple audio sources External Closed Caption XML file (SRT) Canvas 2D extensions, Canvas 3D
    60. 60. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking Multiple video sources Multiple audio sources External Closed Caption XML file (SRT) Canvas 2D extensions, Canvas 3D WebSockets
    61. 61. What’s Missing Because of the aggressive timeline, some things may not make the cut. Standard video codec Multitracking Multiple video sources Multiple audio sources External Closed Caption XML file (SRT) Canvas 2D extensions, Canvas 3D WebSockets The W3C originally said HTML5 would be done in 2010. I’m just sayin’.
    62. 62. The W3C or the WHATWG?
    63. 63. The W3C or the WHATWG?
    64. 64. Who are the WHATWG?
    65. 65. Who are the WHATWG? yeah, who am I?
    66. 66. Mozilla and Opera proposed to the W3C:
    67. 67. Mozilla and Opera proposed to the W3C: Would you please drop your XHTML efforts in favor of extending HTML 4 in more practical new ways that focused on rich web applications?
    68. 68. Mozilla and Opera proposed to the W3C: Would you please drop your XHTML efforts in favor of extending HTML 4 in more practical new ways that focused on rich web applications? No.
    69. 69. What the What?
    70. 70. What the What? Apple, Mozilla, and Opera start up the independent... WHATWG
    71. 71. What the What? Apple, Mozilla, and Opera start up the independent... WHATWG text App lication Web Hyper Group nology Working Tech
    72. 72. What the What? Apple, Mozilla, and Opera start up the independent... WHATWG text App lication Web Hyper Group nology Working Tech I gotta have more standards!
    73. 73. WHATWG Goals
    74. 74. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots
    75. 75. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX
    76. 76. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX Modernize HTML
    77. 77. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX Modernize HTML Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript
    78. 78. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots backward Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX compatibility Modernize HTML Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript
    79. 79. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots backward Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX compatibility Modernize HTML specs match implementation Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript
    80. 80. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots backward Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX compatibility Modernize HTML specs match implementation Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript specs clear and unambiguous
    81. 81. WHATWG Goals Return the web to its open roots backward Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX compatibility Modernize HTML specs match implementation Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript specs clear and unambiguous Wa itaminute! Where is IE??
    82. 82. New WHATWG Proposal
    83. 83. New WHATWG Proposal W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG
    84. 84. New WHATWG Proposal W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG Drops XHTML.
    85. 85. New WHATWG Proposal W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG Drops XHTML. Yes. Another one.
    86. 86. New WHATWG Proposal W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG Drops XHTML. Ok. Yes. Another But I’m in one. charge. Sure you are.
    87. 87. Who are the W3C?
    88. 88. Who are the W3C?
    89. 89. Who are the W3C?yeah, who are we?
    90. 90. W3C Credibility
    91. 91. W3C Credibility Membership
    92. 92. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules
    93. 93. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules Is pay-for-play; requires fees
    94. 94. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules Is pay-for-play; requires fees Mostly large companies
    95. 95. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules Is pay-for-play; requires fees Mostly large companies Listens only to large companies
    96. 96. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules Is pay-for-play; requires fees Mostly large companies Listens only to large companies ...yet manages to make them all mad
    97. 97. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules Is pay-for-play; requires fees Mostly large companies Listens only to large companies ...yet manages to make them all mad Once called HTML "done" and moved on to XHTML2 (which nobody used)
    98. 98. W3C Credibility Membership Decided by secret rules Is pay-for-play; requires fees Mostly large companies Listens only to large companies ...yet manages to make them all mad Once called HTML "done" and moved on to XHTML2 (which nobody used) Tried to make standards patentable
    99. 99. W3C Credibility - cont’d
    100. 100. W3C Credibility - cont’d W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
    101. 101. W3C Credibility - cont’d W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web O cto ber 2 010 five at was go!! Th ths a m on
    102. 102. W3C Credibility - cont’d W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web O cto ber Officials say Flash and Silverlight are still going to remain approved and viable web technologies. 2 010 five at was go!! Th ths a m on
    103. 103. W3C Credibility - cont’d W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web O cto ber Officials say Flash and Silverlight are still going to remain approved and viable web technologies. 2 010 "There is a sense that the (W3C) is becoming a little too academic and out of the mainstream and their work too esoteric." five at was go!! Th ths a - Uttam Narsu, Giga Information Group Analyst m on
    104. 104. W3C - Problems?
    105. 105. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose?
    106. 106. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work
    107. 107. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted
    108. 108. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted They almost killed that too. Google it!
    109. 109. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted They almost killed that too. Google it! Loving HTML5 to death
    110. 110. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted They almost killed that too. Google it! Loving HTML5 to death (cute logo guys!)
    111. 111. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted They almost killed that too. Google it! Loving HTML5 to death (cute logo guys!) Top down standards writing doesnt work
    112. 112. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted They almost killed that too. Google it! Loving HTML5 to death (cute logo guys!) Top down standards writing doesnt work The W3C’s antics does risk alienating the browser companies who have worked so hard to resuscitate HTML
    113. 113. W3C - Problems? Killing the golden goose? WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work XML History is sorted They almost killed that too. Google it! Loving HTML5 to death (cute logo guys!) Top down standards writing doesnt work The W3C’s antics does risk alienating the browser companies who have worked so hard to resuscitate HTML
    114. 114. What do we do now?
    115. 115. What do we do now? ?? ?? ? ?
    116. 116. What do we do?
    117. 117. What do we do? Nothing.
    118. 118. What do we do? Nothing. WHATWG’s “living standards” will get rolled into W3C’s versioned spec... somewhere. sometime.
    119. 119. What do we do? Nothing. WHATWG’s “living standards” will get rolled into W3C’s versioned spec... somewhere. sometime. Features that don’t make it into HTML5 will go into HTML.next (I’m guessing that will be HTML6)
    120. 120. What do we do? Nothing. WHATWG’s “living standards” will get rolled into W3C’s versioned spec... somewhere. sometime. Features that don’t make it into HTML5 will go into HTML.next (I’m guessing that will be HTML6) User Agents are the ones innovating. Those innovations are added to the browser and then to the spec.
    121. 121. What do we do? Nothing. WHATWG’s “living standards” will get rolled into W3C’s versioned spec... somewhere. sometime. Features that don’t make it into HTML5 will go into HTML.next (I’m guessing that will be HTML6) User Agents are the ones innovating. Those innovations are added to the browser and then to the spec. The feature is either there or it’s not.
    122. 122. What do we do? Nothing. WHATWG’s “living standards” will get rolled into W3C’s versioned spec... somewhere. sometime. Features that don’t make it into HTML5 will go into HTML.next (I’m guessing that will be HTML6) User Agents are the ones innovating. Those innovations are added to the browser and then to the spec. The feature is either there or it’s not. Your client doesn’t know about this soap opera. Keep calling it HTML5.
    123. 123. HTML5 is still a viable marketing term.
    124. 124. HTML5 is still a viable marketing term. HTML5?? GiveSee that? You need some me six!! HTML5 right here.
    125. 125. Resources http://www.w3.org/News/2011.html#entry-9015 http://www.salsitasoft.com/blog/2010/12/08/the-trouble-with-web-standards-part-2- top-down-doesnt-work/ http://www.webmonkey.com/glossary/the-difference-between-the-whatwg-and-the- htmlwg/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium http://mashable.com/2010/10/07/w3c-stalls-html5/ http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/whats-still-missing-in-the- html5-spec-314
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×