[assimpleaspossi]

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.

[jraph]

> 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.

[mcny]

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?

[jraph]

> 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… :-)

[7bit]

Microsoft never said that, that's a myth/common misconception

[jraph]

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...

[7bit]

Answering after your edit:

Yes, Jerry Nixon claimed something like that (he's not just a dev though). But Microsoft never confirmed that, so it's just a statement by one person.

The Wikipedia quote is problematic, because it doesn't reference any sources for their claim. Whoever the author of that paragraph, it's journalistically bad practice not providing any sources to that claim.

[jraph]

Yeah, we can find quotes from various articles on the web and I did between writing my comment and my edit (I was on the phone, I didn't bother citing them here).

Wikipedia articles should source everything indeed, it's not that it's bad practice, it's against the idea of Wikipedia not to.

[assimpleaspossi]

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.

[jraph]

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

[assimpleaspossi]

I am right and I gave you the proof. Understanding what one means when mentioning HTML5 has nothing to do with technically understanding that there is no HTML5 standard.

[jraph]

Let's just say that I don't think the truths you are pushing are as absolute as you seem to think, and I think they are a reflect of how you view the world more than anything.

And that by correcting people that mention HTML5, you will probably just annoy people without achieving anything worth it. That would be true even if you are absolutely correct.

It's peak "well, actually", with the twist it might not even actually be.

That's not the truth, just my opinion, and I appreciate that you might not agree.

Note that OP didn't mention "The HTML5 Standard", they mentioned "HTML5".

[assimpleaspossi]

I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand, despite my pointing to online documentation, is that placing closing slashes on some elements can cause harm and that no HTML standard tells you to put one there or has ever required it. Yet they argue with me anyway. Much like you argue with me about this. And that's when I stop.

[cxr]

Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard.

It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists.

That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their current work the "Living Standard" doesn't erase that fact, any more than the W3C's publication of the third edition of the PNG standard last summer means that earlier editions "don't exist".

[assimpleaspossi]

Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.

[rhdunn]

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.