Re: HTML 5.0

Toby Inkster <usenet200512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
>> HTML 5.0? What's the nature of this? What's the point? Are they
>> trying to rebel W3C? I thought XHTML 2.0 is the future.

[snip]

>The HTML 5 authors are not trying to rebel against the W3C -- in fact,
>they're each *members* of the W3C.

Reading between the lines it seemed to me that the WHATWG was formed
partially out of frustration with W3C. Reading W3C's response to the Web
Forms 2.0 submission suggests that W3C in turn are not exactly happy
with this "break-off" initiative:
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/02/Comment

Structures like W3C are imo hopelessly inefficient with regard to
language innovations. If initiatives like the WHATWG can deliver better
progress without causing a rift then more power to them please.

--
Spartanicus
.

Relevant Pages

  • does it really exist any xhtml 2?
    ... pages i've written to have them validated as xhtml 1.0 strict. ... evolution of xhtml 1.0 and this is why i'd like to prepare my website ... front of a monitor is enough and i prefer reading printed paper--. ... then validate it on http://validate.w3.org being ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
  • A question about XHTML 2.0
    ... I was reading about the aims for XHTML 2.0 and I noticed that instead of having h1-h6 elements, they will use and elements to better structure the content. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: xhtml teething troubles
    ... At the same time I miss a lot of professional knowledge in XML ... definitely weak in reading W3C docs and my English ... Full disclosure: I am aware of two camps around of XHTML: the camp ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
  • Re: XHTML2?
    ... The XHTML 2 working group was set up ages ago and is still going. ... WHATWG was set up by browser vendors to write a new specification ... The W3C set up a new HTML working group last year, ...
    (alt.html)