The document discusses the history of HTML and CSS standards development over time. It notes that in the early years of the web there was a lot of innovation, but after the author "went pro" there was only one major HTML release for a long time. This was due to the W3C prioritizing semantics and multi-device support over new features. The WHATWG group formed because they did not think the W3C was well-suited to further HTML development. The document expresses frustration with the slow pace of CSS standards development at the W3C. It advocates for more designer involvement and recommends experimenting with new features, building use cases, and opening dialogue to influence standards development.

1. Mark asked me to talk about something from my HTML5/CSS workshop (http://
workshop.germanforblack.com) but I after prepping for my workshop I’ve formulated some
other thoughts about how the web and standards sit. Hence this topic.

3. So when you’re looking forwards, sometimes the best thing to do...

4. History
is to look at the past. what worked, what didn’t. etcetera

5. Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

6. 95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

7. 2.0
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

8. 2.0 3.2 4.0
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

9. 2.0 3.2 4.0 4.01
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

10. XHTML1
2.0 3.2 4.0 4.01
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

11. XHTML1
XHTML1.1
2.0 3.2 4.0 4.01
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

12. XHTML1
XHTML1.1
HTML5
2.0 3.2 4.0 4.01
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Looking back, there was a lot of innovation going on early in my career, I quickly realised that
since I ‘went pro’ with the web there had only been one major HTML release. This bothered
me a fair bit. Looking at why: The W3C became increasingly interested in semantics and
allowing publication of content on various devices, mobile, print, televisions. They made
some good decisions, but poorly executed them. XHTML went nowhere.

15. The whatwg group formed because they didn’t believe that the w3c would well handle further
development of HTML

17. 

19. The whatwg group have gone through the html5 spec with a fine tooth comb. Applying use cases
and better documenting how browsers should handle elements down to a very detailed level.

21. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t take style tips from this man. Bert, the co-creator of
CSS is a PHD and built a beautiful, elegant way for the world to apply style to HTML.

22. I saw him talk at web directions around 3-5 years ago, one thing that he said while showing
new css3 features was ‘fancy borders’, this really stuck with me, he had no idea what
designers really wanted or needed.

23. With an example like this sitting in the spec today, its pretty clear that designer presence
doesn’t exist within the w3c

24. One question comes to your mind when you consider that the w3c css working group are a
‘closed’ organisation

26. See : Recommendation 15, dated 2009.

27. See : Recommendation 15, dated 2009.

28. go back TEN FUCKING YEARS to 1999 and we’re at draft 3 for selectors.

29. go back TEN FUCKING YEARS to 1999 and we’re at draft 3 for selectors.

30. but something happened, John, from mozilla worked css selectors into jquery

31. we got the functionality to use in JS two years ago. browsers have already implemented many
of the selectors. this was a good result

32. Fact.

33. David Desandro made this awesome sticker book using webkit transformations and
animations.
Key: Experiment with new features as early as possible. Build things that you aren’t sure
about. Make use-cases for the w3c and tell them about it!

34. Write articles about technology, weather it be technical or about generally how it makes you
feel. It is important to open dialogue up with designers, developers and spec authors.

35. Join or form your own groups