Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nathell 152 days ago
It’s ironic that the very site in question, despite claiming XHTML compliance, is served as text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml, so the browser will never parse it as XML.

To quote [0]:

> All those “Valid XHTML 1.0!” links on the web are really saying “Invalid HTML 4.01!”.

Although the article is 20 years old now, so these days it’s actually HTML5.

Edit: Checked the other member sites. Only two are served as application/xhtml+xml.

[0]: https://webkit.org/blog/68/understanding-html-xml-and-xhtml/
2 comments
jraph 152 days ago
And this makes the XML prolog invalid, because it's invalid to have it in HTML.

Not having it is XHTML compliant though, so it could just be removed.

link
assimpleaspossi 152 days ago
>>these days it’s actually HTML5.

There is no HTML5. It's just a buzzword. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/dev/introduction.html#is-this-h...?

link
jraph 152 days ago
That's a stretch. Your link says

> Is this HTML5?

> In short: Yes.

See also [1].

That HTML5 was used in marketing doesn't make the technical term disappear. HTML5 is a bit more precise than HTML, it refers to the living standard that's currently in use, as opposed to HTML 4.01 and the previous versions of HTML.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5

link
assimpleaspossi 152 days ago
It's not a technical term. Nowhere in the current HTML standard will you find a versioning of HTML. That's why it's now called a "living standard". You will never find a HTML6 or higher. That note you found is to help with any confusion.
link
jraph 152 days ago
> You will never find a HTML6 or higher

You might be right, but we don't know yet. Microsoft said that for Windows 10.

You might also be right that the current Living Standard specification doesn't really call it HTML5, but you'll find many people writing HTML for a living say HTML5 to refer to it, and telling them that HTML5 doesn't exist doesn't really help and is a bit wrong too if you have a descriptive approach to languages.

link
mcny 152 days ago
I'm still hopeful.

The next version of html should be able to do all the http verbs -- get, put, patch, post, delete online, reactively without having to use a form.

There has to be a way to figure this out, even if it requires a transition period. The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is now. These things belong in the core HTML standards, not a js library you need to include in your code.

Oh that and better controls and better defaults but I guess that is something individual web browsers can implement on their own?

link
jraph 152 days ago
> that is something individual web browsers can implement on their own?

Yes, they could, but you want a standard that makes them all implement stuff in a compatible way… :-)

link
7bit 151 days ago
Microsoft never said that, that's a myth/common misconception
link
jraph 151 days ago
Okay, at least I haven't dreamed it: [1]

> Although Microsoft claimed Windows 10 would be the last Windows version, eventually a new major release, Windows 11, was announced in 2021.

Where does the misconception come from? Do you know where I could read about it?

edit: it seems you are right, a dev said Windows 10 was the "last version of Windows" which was true but was interpreted as being an absolute statement when he really probably meant "at this time".

Thanks for correcting me!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_hist...

link
assimpleaspossi 152 days ago
Telling them HTML5 does exist does even more harm cause it doesn't exist. Telling them it does exist is entirely wrong and is even a false statement, is misleading and causes confusion.
link
jraph 152 days ago
Ok, I'll bite.

Assuming you are right and HTML5 doesn't exist. What would be the actual bad outcomes of the following?

- believing HTML5 exists

- silently choosing to understand what someone mentioning HTML5 obviously meant

link
rhdunn 152 days ago
One of the annoying things about having a living standard is that it is difficult to implement a conforming version as additional updates means that you are no longer conforming.

Versioned standards allow you to know that you are compliant to that version of the specification, and track the changes between versions -- i.e. what additional functionality do I need to implement.

With "living standards" you need to track the date/commit you last checked and do a manual diff to work out what has changed.

link