Re:W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
by nitrogen on Thursday October 07, 2010 @04:36AM
(#1767224)
...until then, officials say Flash and Silverlight are still going to remain approved and viable web technologies.
Who are these officials that approve of Flash and Silverlight as web technologies superior to HTML5? I've never heard of a Flash working group at the W3C. The closest I found is someone asking for W3C involvement in 2008:
Re:W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
by malandrew on Thursday October 07, 2010 @08:21AM
(#1767574)
Seriously!?
The articles cites an "official" of the W3C and not the name of a person. Was it someone of important such as Ian Hickson or was it just some bureaucrat or intern?
Who made these statements matters greatly and defines the line between news and non-news. This is complete non-news unless it was a person highly involved with defining or implementing the spec.
The fact that the author cited Silverlight smells very fishy to me.
This title and the entire article is just pure unadulterated linkbait.
Re:W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
by jimwise on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:57PM
(#1768739)
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the unnamed official, I have to admit that HTML5 feels a little like HTML3 to me -- it's following up a lean markup language (HTML2, HTML 4/XHTML 1.0) which was explicitly defined as an application of a well-defined general purpose language (SGML, XML), with a new version which is not so defined, and which contains a bunch of features which everyone wants right now, but which feel a little shoe-horned into the new standard (anyone remember HTML 3 Math mode?).
I suspect HTML 6 will be a lot more interesting, being the same sort of orthogonalization of the parts of HTML5 which actually got implemented by browsers that HTML 4 was for the mess that was HTML 3...
Re:W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
by utoku on Thursday October 07, 2010 @04:31AM
(#1767214)
It is an example of bad online journalism.
Apparently the writer is quoting an official, but to find who he is quoting you have to click on the link "today". So you naturally think "today" is probably a link to the event, so it ends up being an article with an unnamed quote.
Who are these officials that approve of Flash and Silverlight as web technologies superior to HTML5? I've never heard of a Flash working group at the W3C. The closest I found is someone asking for W3C involvement in 2008:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/311802/w3c-involvement-in...
The articles cites an "official" of the W3C and not the name of a person. Was it someone of important such as Ian Hickson or was it just some bureaucrat or intern?
Who made these statements matters greatly and defines the line between news and non-news. This is complete non-news unless it was a person highly involved with defining or implementing the spec.
The fact that the author cited Silverlight smells very fishy to me.
This title and the entire article is just pure unadulterated linkbait.
I suspect HTML 6 will be a lot more interesting, being the same sort of orthogonalization of the parts of HTML5 which actually got implemented by browsers that HTML 4 was for the mess that was HTML 3...
Apparently the writer is quoting an official, but to find who he is quoting you have to click on the link "today". So you naturally think "today" is probably a link to the event, so it ends up being an article with an unnamed quote.
Bad markup being the culprit - somewhat ironically.