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?

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 Wilcox
March 2011

2. January 17th, 2011

3. January 17th, 2011
HTML5 Grows Up and Gets a Shiny
New Logo

4. January 17th, 2011
HTML5 Grows Up and Gets a Shiny
New Logo

5. New Logo! What’s Good

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. New Logo! What’s Bad

12. New Logo! What’s Bad
We need a logo? There's no logo for CSS, JavaScript,
or XML.

13. New Logo! What’s Bad
We need a logo? There's no logo for CSS, JavaScript,
or XML.
W3C raises awareness for themselves.

14. New Logo! What’s Bad
We need a logo? There's no logo for CSS, JavaScript,
or XML.
W3C raises awareness for themselves.
Flash doesn't even have a logo. The IDE does, but AS3
doesn't.

15. New Logo! What’s Bad
We need a logo? There's no logo for CSS, JavaScript,
or XML.
W3C raises awareness for themselves.
Flash doesn't even have a logo. The IDE does, but AS3
doesn't.
Hey! Some of those sub-logos have nothing to do with
HTML5!

16. New Logo

17. New Logo
By the way, nobody asked me but...

18. New Logo
By the way, nobody asked me but...
Designed by Occupop in
Hawaii
Price: $10 billion
Time: 12 years

19. New Logo
By the way, nobody asked me but...
Done by Mike Wilcox
Designed by Occupop in
Hawaii Price: $0.00
Time: 15 minutes
Price: $10 billion
Time: 12 years

20. January 19th, 2011

21. January 19th, 2011
The WHATWG announces that
HTML5 will no longer exist.

22. January 19th, 2011 2 da
ys
later
The WHATWG announces that
HTML5 will no longer exist.

23. January 19th, 2011 2 da
ys
later
The WHATWG announces that
HTML5 will no longer exist.
HTML5

24. January 19th, 2011 2 da
ys
later
The WHATWG announces that
HTML5 will no longer exist.
ick son
Ia nH
HTML5

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. 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. Versionitus

28. Versionitus
Outrage ensues.

29. Versionitus
Outrage ensues.
Can we still use the term HTML5?

30. Versionitus
Outrage ensues.
Can we still use the term HTML5?
2022 was bad enough, now it’s never!

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The W3C Backtrack

38. The W3C Backtrack

39. The W3C Backtrack
" This is no
t the offic
ial logo ye
t"

40. The W3C Backtrack
" This is no
t the offic
ial logo ye
t"
FAQ:
Q:! Are a ll those technology
features de fine d in the HTML5
specification?
A: !No, not all of them.

41. The W3C Backtrack
" This is no
t the offic
ial logo ye
t"
FAQ:
Q:! Are a ll those technology
features de fine d in the HTML5 W3C w ill cont
inue to use
specification? "Open Web Platform" as
A: !No, not all of them. well [as HTML5], an d we
may have a
corresponding logo.

42. The W3C Backtrack
" This is no
t the offic
ial logo ye
t"
FAQ:
Q:! Are a ll those technology
features de fine d in the HTML5 W3C w ill cont
inue to use
specification? "Open Web Platform" as
A: !No, not all of them. well [as HTML5], an d we
may have a
corresponding logo.
Ian Jacobs
Head of W3C Marketing
and Communications

44. and then...

45. February 14, 2011

46. February 14, 2011 28 d
ays
later

47. February 14, 2011 28 d
ays
later
The W3C announces that
HTML5 will be done in 2014.

48. February 14, 2011 28 d
ays
later
The W3C announces that
HTML5 will be done in 2014.
Okay. It’s
DONE.

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.

50. 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!!?!

51. Developers Rejoice!

52. Developers Rejoice!
...or do they?

53. What’s Missing

54. What’s Missing
Because of the aggressive timeline, some
things may not make the cut.

55. What’s Missing
Because of the aggressive timeline, some
things may not make the cut.
Standard video codec

56. What’s Missing
Because of the aggressive timeline, some
things may not make the cut.
Standard video codec
Multitracking

57. What’s Missing
Because of the aggressive timeline, some
things may not make the cut.
Standard video codec
Multitracking
Multiple video sources

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

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)

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

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

62. 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’.

63. The W3C or the WHATWG?

64. The W3C or the WHATWG?

65. Who are the WHATWG?

66. Who are the WHATWG?
yeah, who am I?

67. Mozilla and Opera proposed to the W3C:

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?

69. 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.

70. What the What?

71. What the What?
Apple, Mozilla, and Opera start up the independent...
WHATWG

72. What the What?
Apple, Mozilla, and Opera start up the independent...
WHATWG
text App lication
Web Hyper Group
nology Working
Tech

73. 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!

74. WHATWG Goals

75. WHATWG Goals
Return the web to its open roots

76. WHATWG Goals
Return the web to its open roots
Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX

77. WHATWG Goals
Return the web to its open roots
Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX
Modernize HTML

78. WHATWG Goals
Return the web to its open roots
Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX
Modernize HTML
Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript

79. WHATWG Goals
Return the web to its open roots
backward
Bypass Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX compatibility
Modernize HTML
Adapt the DOM, advance JavaScript

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

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

82. 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??

83. New WHATWG Proposal

84. New WHATWG Proposal
W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG

85. New WHATWG Proposal
W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG
Drops XHTML.

86. New WHATWG Proposal
W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG
Drops XHTML.
Yes. Another
one.

87. New WHATWG Proposal
W3C Accepts, forms the HTMLWG
Drops XHTML.
Ok.
Yes. Another
But I’m in one.
charge.
Sure you
are.

88. Who are the W3C?

89. Who are the W3C?

90. Who are the W3C?
yeah, who are we?

91. W3C Credibility

92. W3C Credibility
Membership

93. W3C Credibility
Membership
Decided by secret rules

94. W3C Credibility
Membership
Decided by secret rules
Is pay-for-play; requires fees

95. W3C Credibility
Membership
Decided by secret rules
Is pay-for-play; requires fees
Mostly large companies

96. W3C Credibility
Membership
Decided by secret rules
Is pay-for-play; requires fees
Mostly large companies
Listens only to large companies

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

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)

99. 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

100. W3C Credibility - cont’d

101. W3C Credibility - cont’d
W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web

102. 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

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
five
at was go!!
Th ths a
m on

104. 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

105. W3C - Problems?

106. W3C - Problems?
Killing the golden goose?

107. W3C - Problems?
Killing the golden goose?
WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work

108. W3C - Problems?
Killing the golden goose?
WHATWG has done the lion’s share of the work
XML History is sorted

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!

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

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!)

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 doesn't work

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 doesn't work
The W3C’s antics does risk alienating the browser
companies who have worked so hard to resuscitate
HTML

114. 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 doesn't work
The W3C’s antics does risk alienating the browser
companies who have worked so hard to resuscitate
HTML

115. What do we do now?

116. What do we do now?
?? ?? ? ?

117. What do we do?

118. What do we do?
Nothing.

119. What do we do?
Nothing.
WHATWG’s “living standards” will get rolled into
W3C’s versioned spec... somewhere. sometime.

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)

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.

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.

123. 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.

124. HTML5 is still a viable marketing
term.

125. HTML5 is still a viable marketing
term.
HTML5?? Give
See that? You need some me six!!
HTML5 right here.

126. 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