W3C Finalizes the Definition of HTML5 113
hypnosec writes "The Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) has announced that it has finalized the definition of HTML5 and that it is ready for interoperability testing. HTML5 hasn't been given the status of standard yet but it is feature complete now, giving developers a stable target to develop their web applications. The W3C said in the announcement 'HTML5 is the cornerstone of the Open Web Platform" and that it provides an environment which can utilize all of a device's capabilities like videos, animations, graphics and typography. The HTML5 specifications still have a long way to go before they hit the Recommendation status. HTML5 will have to go through a round of testing that looks specifically into interoperability and performance after which time it will be given a Candidate Recommendation title."
Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
It is by no means finalised. This is like a beta. It's feature complete, now they've got to shake out the interoperability bugs between implementations. During this phase, they can discover that there are flaws or omissions within the specification, which will entail changes to the specification. When they have multiple interoperable implementations, then it will be finalised.
Re:A half dozen years late courtesy of Firefox... (Score:2, Informative)
Not really. There are many new additions with HTML5 and the codec choice was just one major visible fight among countless small decisions on tags, attributes, DOM, etc.
Re:Mayan Calendar was right (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile, in reality, mobile browsers are the most advanced browsers out there. It's the desktop ones *cough* from Microsoft *cough* that are causing problems, not the mobile space.
Re:Write once, runs anywhere ? (Score:2, Informative)
Qt is pretty good about that, assuming you don't use any OS-specific API calls. True, Qt won't run on every tablet/smartphone ever made but it covers Windows, Mac, and Linux pretty well.
Re:W3C Testimonials Members list on HTML 5 funny (Score:4, Informative)
While every standard has its issues I'm really hoping your hatred of XML/XHTML isn't the usual one. That is, that the "problem" with XHTML and XML is that parsers simply refuse to deal with broken XML/XHTML*, as far as I'm concerned that's a feature, not a bug.
* I've heard complaints about this many times, the core complaint seems to be "well, now I have to write markup that's actually standards-compliant and that's just too hard! I want HTML that will render even if it's horribly broken!"