Comments on: HTML 5 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/ Web development and Internet trends Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:18:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Robert http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-224 Robert Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:20:25 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-224 Anne, If that's the case, I, for one, think it's a good thing if W3C collaborate (further) with WHATWG. Hopefully it will result in something astonishing! :-) Anne,

If that’s the case, I, for one, think it’s a good thing if W3C collaborate (further) with WHATWG.
Hopefully it will result in something astonishing! :-)

]]> By: Anne http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-222 Anne Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:41:27 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-222 Well, the W3C is based on membership. Besides, the W3C is looking together with the WHATWG at the moment how they can cooperate and produce the standards outside the normal W3C production process. At least, as far as I understand it. Well, the W3C is based on membership.

Besides, the W3C is looking together with the WHATWG at the moment how they can cooperate and produce the standards outside the normal W3C production process. At least, as far as I understand it.

]]> By: Robert http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-221 Robert Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:51:20 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-221 Anne, Good to see you here! > Also, if many browsers that are members of the W3C implement this the W3C has to acknowledge that and do something with it. This is an interesting point! They definitely have to acknowledge it then, but the question is if it's the way to go. It comes across as a small rebellion againt W3C, like "we're not totally happy with the specifications, so let's create our own, and implement them in enough web browsers so the W3C <em>has</em> to include them". Kind of like submission by force. Anne,

Good to see you here!

> Also, if many browsers that are members of the W3C implement this the W3C has to acknowledge that and do something with it.

This is an interesting point! They definitely have to acknowledge it then, but the question is if it’s the way to go.
It comes across as a small rebellion againt W3C, like “we’re not totally happy with the specifications, so let’s create our own, and implement them in enough web browsers so the W3C has to include them”.

Kind of like submission by force.

]]> By: Anne http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-220 Anne Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:29:27 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-220 It <a href="http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2005-April/003472.html" rel="nofollow">came up</a> on the mailing list. However, as HTML5 will include Web Forms 2 I am not sure if it is a good name. It does include more than you would expect from just a markup language, but I'm not sure if that is relevant enough. O well, eventually it will be decided. I do think the W3C will be involved as they are also involved with Web Forms 2 at the moment and this specification will supercede that one. Also, if many browsers that are members of the W3C implement this the W3C has to acknowledge that and do something with it. It came up on the mailing list. However, as HTML5 will include Web Forms 2 I am not sure if it is a good name.

It does include more than you would expect from just a markup language, but I’m not sure if that is relevant enough. O well, eventually it will be decided.

I do think the W3C will be involved as they are also involved with Web Forms 2 at the moment and this specification will supercede that one. Also, if many browsers that are members of the W3C implement this the W3C has to acknowledge that and do something with it.

]]> By: Robert http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-219 Robert Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:13:54 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-219 That's a good name! :-D I remember seeing it somewhere too... That’s a good name! :-D
I remember seeing it somewhere too…

]]> By: Tommy Olsson http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-218 Tommy Olsson Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:10:24 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-218 I can't remember where I saw it, but someone suggested HAppy (HTML Applications /something-or-other/). :) I can’t remember where I saw it, but someone suggested HAppy (HTML Applications /something-or-other/). :)

]]> By: Robert http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-217 Robert Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:45:51 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-217 I can live with WAML! :-) I can live with WAML! :-)

]]> By: Faruk Ates http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-216 Faruk Ates Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:41:52 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-216 WAML! - Web Applications Markup Language WAHT? - Web Applications HyperText THWAP - The Hypertext Web Applications Project I like the last one best ;) WAML! - Web Applications Markup Language

WAHT? - Web Applications HyperText

THWAP - The Hypertext Web Applications Project

I like the last one best ;)

]]> By: Robert http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-215 Robert Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:37:40 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-215 Given the participants' connection to W3C, yes, it is likely to happen. Regarding the name, Web Applications is what it is about. So maybe just WA? Given the participants’ connection to W3C, yes, it is likely to happen.

Regarding the name, Web Applications is what it is about. So maybe just WA?

]]> By: Faruk Ates http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/27/html-5/#comment-214 Faruk Ates Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:32:29 +0000 http://www.robertnyman.com/2005/04/23/html-5/#comment-214 Whether the W3C will adopt it is indeed a good question, but I think it's safe to be hopeful there. As for the name, I agree, but I can't come up with a better name at all, myself. It's neither HTML nor XHTML, yet it's both of them. Naming it one or the other seems a bit off, to me. I propose NHTML - New HyperText Markup Language. =) Whether the W3C will adopt it is indeed a good question, but I think it’s safe to be hopeful there.

As for the name, I agree, but I can’t come up with a better name at all, myself. It’s neither HTML nor XHTML, yet it’s both of them. Naming it one or the other seems a bit off, to me. I propose NHTML - New HyperText Markup Language. =)

]]>