View Full Version : W3C releases FPWD of HTML5

01-22-2008, 11:46 PM
FPWD means First Public Working Draft, if any of you didn't know.

- HTML5 - A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/)
- HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/)

01-23-2008, 11:51 AM
FPWD means First Public Working Draft, if any of you didn't know.

Thanks for clarifying. :)

I always thought that the W3C has abolished the development of SGML based HTML in favor of XHTML and that HTML 5 was only an effort of some of those people that oppose to the strict practices of XHTML 2? I kinda dislike the idea that a real effort is made to continue to support tag soup rather than just stopping to support it step by step. Of course that would break some amateur websites but if it’s done slowly and step by step people can arrange themselves with it.

I also find it somewhat problematic that they call the XML version of HTML 5 XHTML 5 as this might be a little confusing if XHTML 5 is released before XHTML 2 and potentially 3, and 4. But those are just my 2¢.

01-23-2008, 07:37 PM
Nope, WHATWG and the W3C are developing HTML 5 as well. XHTML was, apparently, just a waste of time. I don't particularly like SGML syntax, either...and am annoyed that they're not going to put a distinguishing mark for versions. So what about HTML 6, huh? The version attribute would be nice, but no, that's too good for 'em. And they're making embed legal and bringing back inline frames. Fun.

Btw, to distinguish they're not putting a space. XHTML5 & HTML5.

03-13-2008, 06:54 AM
One of the problems with HTML 4 was that it was out of touch with reality, and it certainly hasn't kept up as we've moved into a far more media-centric web. HTML5 is intended to be an update that more closely resembles the actual state of the web (valid, of course, because this is the W3C).

SGML does not equal "tag soup" because you can have XML "tag soup" too (see RSS as an example). At the same time, XHTML (being XML on the web) has not been particularly successful up to this point. People use XHTML syntax but don't serve pages as XHTML. Any webpage coded with XHTML and not being served as application/xml+xhtml is NOT following web standards, and is invalid. Coding a site as valid HTML 4.01 and serving it with text/html is perfectly valid -- and this is the honest-to-goodness true state of the web.

HTML5 and XHTML5 are the same spec, and have identical syntax except that XHTML additionally uses XML rules (e.g. self-closing tags). It should also be understood that this is a first draft, and first drafts always get edited based on feedback.

XHTML2 is a complete detachment from the current state of the web. It's not that XHTML2 is based on XML and XHTML5 isn't, it's that (X)HTML5 is trying to stay closer to the real-world web, and XHTML2 is on some other planet.