To quote @tabatkins[1]:

"The W3C violates its own process, lets HTML go to CR with 100+ bugs still active: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=adva...

(Regarding the process to move to Candidate Recommendation[2], which is what HTML5 just hit.)

[1] https://twitter.com/tabatkins/status/280825291620896770

[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transitio...

As the WHATWG clearly states, HTML5 is a living standard, and evolving constantly.

W3C likes to have solid specs and therefore freezes it and gives it a name. Its nothing more than tagging a certain timepoint with a version number.

I prefer the living standard. However, giving it a version name makes it easier to comunicate about sometimes.

This blog posts makes it much clearer: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-and-html5

A non-event, it's WHATWG that matters now.

Maybe those Mayans were on to something...

Why did they call the spec "HTML5"? This nonsense reminds me of Java versioning and I'm afraid that "HTML5 2.0" or "HTML5SE 1.4" will follow next.

Actually, it says clearly on the article that the next version is HTML 5.1. Here's the draft of it: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html51-20121217/

Perhaps they'll do what they're doing with CSS and we'll have "HTML body tag version 0.2" and "html head tag version 0.2.3" and ...

FTA:

1.7.1 How to read this specification

This specification should be read like all other specifications. First, it should be read cover-to-cover, multiple times. Then, it should be read backwards at least once. Then it should be read by picking random sections from the contents list and following all the cross-references.

all kidding aside, this is a good thing, right? I have completely lost track what this means and where things are heading.

The W3C and the WHATWG have parted ways due to various political and procedural disagreements.

The WHATWG represents the Browser Vendors more directly and is committed to an ongoing ever-evolving HTML standard rather than fixed release numbers. They also tend towards the more pragmatic side of things. They are probably the ones to watch.

(This is based on my limited understanding. I'm happy to be corrected here)

>The WHATWG represents the Browser Vendors more directly and is committed to an ongoing ever-evolving HTML standard rather than fixed release numbers. //

So you're saying there are two groups claiming to have the canonical HTML spec now?

Exactly. However the W3C have rather lost their claim to legitimacy after the XHTML2 debacle.

any sources or articles about it?

Other than Googling it for you, no. I vaguely followed the controversy at the time and so I don't have any specific source.

Not the first time, I would imagine...

see also: http://xkcd.com/927/

This is such a silly comic. There might be one more standard but its a step in the right direction and multiple vendors adopt the 15th standard sooner or later.

multipe vendors have multiple interests , especially those who ship standards on proprietary plateforms.

Doesnt matter until all browsers implement correctly the spec 100% ( cf IE ). What i'd like to see is a certification process. It's good to have a spec , but there should be a HTML5 certification ( could be automatic , you pass a bunch of tests, you get it, you fail you are not HTMLX certified therefore users shouldnt use your browser ).

Why do you need this certification? There are already things like the acid tests to test your browser. Are you really going to make your browser choice based on a certification? It's already generally known which browser supports which standard how good without certification so you can base your choice on it already, because there aren't that many browsers out there.

>Are you really going to make your browser choice based on a certification? //

I'm not but I design websites.

The general public I think would find it relevant especially based on news media reporting. Why test each browser yourself when the W3C have tested them and certified those that meet a particular use standard. It's more likely to sway people on which browser _not_ to use IMO.

> The general public I think would find it relevant especially based on news media reporting.

They wouldn't.

The evolution of the web technologies is an organic growth that won't be stopped in time to say "HTML5 certified". Browser vendors are pushing innovations through other medium than the W3C (which sometimes causes problem) and but what's needed is driven by the applications (that's why people like facebook are pushing test suites like Ringmark). Looking at browsers using only the HTML5 perspective is sort of restrictive as people and application developers may have other needs either high-tech (NaCl, 3D) or slow-tech (assistive technologies). No browsers can do it 100% right because nobody will ever agree on what those 100% are now and in the future.

It's not about stopping the evolution of web technologies, as you say, it's about guaranteeing a minimum baseline of features that we can be sure is going to be present. A minimum target that you can count on. Most sites have no need for the advanced features you mention, but if they do then there's nothing to stop them requiring that support, and browser manufacturers will certainly keep rolling out new features as they fight for market share. In the end, it's about moving the baseline forward.

> The evolution of the web technologies is an organic growth that won't be stopped in time to say "HTML5 certified".

At the same time now you have a way to say "When I say HTML 5 I refer to these features, at least". Without a spec fixed in stone it is hard to say "I want to use a browser that does HTML 5".

Without fixed specs we are currently regressing to pre-2000 sites "optimized for" a certain browser; "Sorry, this site works only with Chrome" is a common sight on Show HN submissions, but also on sites for a more common audience. With the comeback of something that resemble a fixed spec, let's call it a snapshot spec, this situation may get better, or, at least, not get worse.

100% spec implementation doesnt stop innovation. One browser vendor just needs to respect the spec. If ones want to add more features then i dont see how respecting makes innovation hard. You can still build on top of the spec. Just respect it.

But it is my duty as a web developer to ensure the features i use will be available widely , i dont want to get trapped into this on that plateform , while other major browsers will never implement some "innovative" features.

So innovation if you want, but i care only about stability.