HTML5 to be released in 2022. W3C are officially a joke.

[DaReal_Dionysus]

The news that HTML5 is targeted to be released in 2022 came as the final nail in the coffin of the W3C and the current “Web Standards” movement for me. The W3C is dead, long live the W3C.

The fantastically hard to believe post by Ian “Hixie” Hickson, the lead editor of the HTML5 working group, says everything a developer needs to know about the state of the W3C today. The W3C has become a cancer to the cause of Web Standards, and it needs to be cut out of the equation. It is that simple.

Who the hell knows what the web will be like in 2022? Who even knows what technology the web will be primarily accessed through in 2022 - laptop, mobile, desktop, some new device we haven’t even got yet? The chances of a specification being relevant in another 14yrs are hideously low.

And Ian said of people’s protests at HTML5’s newly re-defined alt attribute: This caused a firestorm of protest from so-called accessibility experts. So-called? These are the people on the WG you are talking about, get your act together, you sound like an idiot! Unfortunately this ass-backward, no-recent-real-world-experience, holier-than-thou attitude seems endemic at the W3C , as far as I’ve seen.

 

[design-is]

Wow, 2022 - if that's true, I completely agree with you.

Though I've not read up much on it recently. I must keep up more...

/Doug

 

[After G]

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=718

Looks like HTML 5 will be fully implemented in all browsers by 2022. Of course standards that don't exist are useless for companies that need to get out products.

 

[carlosbutler]

I can only guess that Microsoft will not have Internet Explorer X (whatever it is at that time) up to standards by that time either because no one will be using it, or considering that for that last 5 years or so they have not followed like other browsers have.

I have not read up on much lately about HTML5, but if they expect to have it running until 2022 they are crazy. 2014 is pushing it considering that the way we interact with computers, or more specifically the way we use our Internet access, will change. Companies keep brining out new products, and in terms of revolutionary products there are only a few around. Those few will dictate how the future of Internet browsing, and the ever greater need for mobile Internet access will go.

 

[Angelo95210]

Not read the article, but yeah it's rather more a question of time to get it implemented, isn' it

We still have to cope with IE6 when coding so you know...

 

[Cerebrus' Maw]

Even if HTML5 spec was written 100%, fully endorsed, and released for tomorrow, when you fired up your computer, you would not see one jot of difference.

HTML5 wont make one bit iota of change if the majority of people will not, either through ignorance, or through restrictions, implement it. 90% of the web doesnt validate to ANY spec, wether its XHTML, DOM, or HTML. 13 years away sounds like a long time, but in the decade past of all the other specifications, we are still in the exact same position.

Many people think that HTML5 will be the silver bullet, will solve all our problems, will make browsers fall in line, will make that damn position:fixed finally work.

It wont.

The specs are just that. Specs. There is nothing stopping any developer here from going out right now and writing HTML5 adherent code. Ian is right when he's says that the biggest mistake the SGML's made was the lack of error handling. It is what has lead to IE 6 problem with the box model (that might be a bit harsh, but I stand by it) He has my sympathies, dealing with such an unwieldy as the Web. Hell, HTML5 wasn't even made by W3c in the beginning.

Gradually, we will see a movement toward valid code, but it will never reach that goal, simply because it is a constantly moving one. In 10 years, who knows what 'web standards' will be around. Perhaps the internet will not be in its current shape, and will be more like the Information Nodes that Google envisions.

 

[angelwatt]

This is very old news, as in over a year old. There has been plenty of discussions on this back then and from the comments it looks like they haven't changed. It's really not a big deal as browsers will implement the specs as they can no matter if they are a final version or not, and when browsers implement these ideas is much more important than when a spec is finished. Apple was using 802.11n for a long time before it was officially released.

 

[Wild-Bill]

Lol

In other news.......

The wireless-n spec was just ratified.

It's a wonder what these "working" groups ever do.

Technology is and will continue to outpace these so-called think tanks.

 

[dukebound85]

2022 lol

we are also having flyinf cars soon according to pop science

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

It's just amazing that most of the developers I know don't even go by the standard as it is a wast of time. Clients don't care about the standard as long as their website works well. Hints why so many developers use dreamweaver, rapidweaver and software along those lines. if you look at some of the website by large production companies that do movie websites could care less about the standards. Flash is a very widely used programs that takes the standard and throw it out the window. W3C will die a slow death and rightly so.

 

[angelwatt]

W3C will die a slow death and rightly so.

I doubt that. Firefox rose up because it was a browser that finally started listening to the W3C and implementing the standards. Without the standards to follow, browsers like IE would be writing the way forward and we know what kind of horrible future that would look like (hint, very similar to IE6).

 

[Dunmail]

It's just amazing that most of the developers I know don't even go by the standard as it is a wast of time. Clients don't care about the standard as long as their website works well. Hints why so many developers use dreamweaver, rapidweaver and software along those lines. if you look at some of the website by large production companies that do movie websites could care less about the standards. Flash is a very widely used programs that takes the standard and throw it out the window. W3C will die a slow death and rightly so.

So those clients don't mind losing sales or ending up in court then?

At my place of work we are not allowed to add/update any software so if some website uses the very latest Flash version for example because the developers thought it was cool, then I can't update my Flash version so the site becomes at the least limited in functionality but more likely unusable so potential loss of sales.

Legally a web site has to be accessible to the disabled, in practice this tends to mean those with failing eyesight or the blind. If a site isn't compliant then screenreaders and the like will have a great deal of trouble in making sense of what's on the page. I wasn't sure how many, if any, such cases there have been. It seems like quite a few, here's one - http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise...st-Target-in-Web-Site-Accessibility-Lawsuits/ and a quote from that page -

There are many applications that are designed to make Web sites accessible to the blind, but they rely on sites using standard programming. This typically includes small text tags next to images, so the software can speak the words aloud.

It appears that the above case is ongoing.

I wonder if the developers for that site had "Our last client was sued because of our work" on their CV/resume?

 

[moderniste]

A site can be accessible and still not validate. I'd rather have invalid code and be able to set a border radius for browsers that support it; the blind will never know or care. It's not that the standards are a bad idea, but they are not keeping pace with the times.

People design for their target market. I don't think the makers of big Flash movie sites are targeting people surfing the net on outdated work computers. For many general websites, supporting old browsers is a good idea; but not every designer in every situation needs to accommodate the lowest common denominator. A static movie site that looks acceptable in IE6 may lose sales because it's not engaging enough.

Ultimately it's what end users want that determines what designers make, whether or not it's supported by outdated browsers or the W3C.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

A site can be accessible and still not validate. I'd rather have invalid code and be able to set a border radius for browsers that support it; the blind will never know or care. It's not that the standards are a bad idea, but they are not keeping pace with the times.

People design for their target market. I don't think the makers of big Flash movie sites are targeting people surfing the net on outdated work computers. For many general websites, supporting old browsers is a good idea; but not every designer in every situation needs to accommodate the lowest common denominator. A static movie site that looks acceptable in IE6 may lose sales because it's not engaging enough.

Ultimately it's what end users want that determines what designers make, whether or not it's supported by outdated browsers or the W3C.

The first person oh here with truth flowing in his statement. Others in the forum should pay attention to this person. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

[kate-willbury]

A site can be accessible and still not validate. I'd rather have invalid code and be able to set a border radius for browsers that support it; the blind will never know or care. It's not that the standards are a bad idea, but they are not keeping pace with the times.

People design for their target market. I don't think the makers of big Flash movie sites are targeting people surfing the net on outdated work computers. For many general websites, supporting old browsers is a good idea; but not every designer in every situation needs to accommodate the lowest common denominator. A static movie site that looks acceptable in IE6 may lose sales because it's not engaging enough.

Ultimately it's what end users want that determines what designers make, whether or not it's supported by outdated browsers or the W3C.

um what does web validity have anything to do with flash? you're confusing validity with accessibility. obviously for a movie site, you don't need to cater to the blind. but said site should still pass w3 validation.

and yes, end users/clients obviously determine what the designers make. but a GOOD designer will guide the client/end user and educate them at least a little bit on why validation is a good idea. the end user/client obviously won't notice that you're using css to manage layout on the page instead of tables, but they will understand that it will be better for search engine optimization, leaner code, easier content management due to separate of content and layout, etc etc etc.

no idea what you're talking about how the 'standards' aren't keeping pace with the times. if you think flash is the way of the future then you have another thing coming. in fact its the other way around. there are a ton of poor designers out there who have no idea what they're doing and have absolutely no clue why they should adhere to standards. if anything, web technology moves so quickly that if you aren't struggling to keep on top of new css tricks, various ajax-related tech, js libraries like jquery, php6, xml, xslt, etc etc, then you're probably completely lost in what you think you know.

flash has its uses, but for the most part, any competent designer will avoid it in favour of better design and coding, structured separation of content and layout, and of course, modern web standards.