Talk:HTML5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for HTML5:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Digital Restriction Management[edit]

The links in the DRM Section go to the Defective by design page - I think going to the Digital Rights Management page may be better, as it better explains the aim. Know this could be a contentious move, so wanted to flag it before doing anything 213.120.104.147 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. --Racklever (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy Chart[edit]

As a red/green color blind individual, the taxonomy chart under the New APIs section is unreadable. I recommend at least editing the image to use more contrasted colors so color blind folks can read it.

74.10.72.66 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Phrase (this was not part of HTML5 though) unclear as to what it's referring to[edit]

The sentence should be clarified or removed. Coreydaj (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

WHATWG claims W3C's HTML5 is a "fork" of theirs and not authoritative[edit]

I'm on one of WHATWG's mailing lists. I raised an issue of the long-standing and frequently bug-reported conflict between the W3C spec for the <cite>...</cite> element and WHATWG's. I was told:

"You may be interested in the history here. W3C 'HTML5' is actually forked from the WHATWG HTML Standard; your claim that the W3C version is in some way authoritative or 'full', or that the WHATWG is redefining things, doesn’t really fit with the facts. See things like https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 or https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_the_difference_between_the_w3c_and_the/ . In fact, if you read up, you’ll see that W3C fork is not only based on the HTML Standard, but periodically copies and pastes from it" ... "[WHATWG] certainly don’t write the specification based on [W3C's], and I don't think it's fair to call us 'unresponsive' if we don't update [ours], given that [theirs] is an unauthoritative source that we don't control or consult. In contrast, we're pretty responsive to actual bugs reported against the content of [our] spec" ... "It’s true that certain W3C editors have, over the years, redefined certain elements in ways that match how they like to write their personal documents. ... [I]t’s best to treat this [i.e., W3C having a different definition of the <cite> element] just as if any other person had decided to redefine an element for their own usage, e.g. how Twitter Bootstrap redefined <i> to mean 'icon'. It’s against the HTML Standard, and writing it down in a forked document and being appointed 'editor' by the forking organization doesn’t really make that redefinition authoritative or 'correct'. (Neither does 'real-world usage'; again, if that was the criteria, we would redefine <i> to mean icon, given how many pages use it that way.)"

This clearly does not jibe with what we have written here. I'm wondering if our material is complete/correct, or if I'm being fed a bunch of subjective and inaccurate spin.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)