[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.

[jraph]

At this point, closing slashes for void elements is coding style, exactly like white space we use for indentation. You can't be right because this is in opinion territory. Exactly like whether one should put semicolons or not in JavaScript when you have automatic semicolon insertion. Some people have strong opinions on the matter. Putting them has drawbacks, and not putting them too, and in both cases, readability and clarity, which is subjective, is a factor.

You are right that it has drawbacks and that it can bite. OTOH, people using closing slashes usually also quote all their attributes and will virtually never be bitten by this.

But people have backgrounds and habits, there's culture around a language like HTML, and these backgrounds are cultures have been shaped by XHTML.

Whether to put or not to put the slash is a healthy conversation to have and there are valid points for both, but if you are arguing like you are doing here for HTML5, considering "they don't bother to understand", you'll lose your arguments and people will find you annoying.

Some people feel bad about not closing br with a slash because it kinda feels like unmatched parentheses, or old malformed HTML from the 90's. That's not reasonable, but for the better or the worse, you can't just ignore this.

Some people sometimes write XML, and when they switch to HTML, their XML habits are there, and following habits especially when they are mostly harmless is efficient.

Some people write polyglot (X)HTML for some reason, and there the slash is needed.

There are reasons to put the slash, like there are reasons not to write it, and you can't just impose your truths like this.

[OptionOfT]

Can you share some of the links you'd share?

I'm someone who still lives in the XHTML world and pedantically close all of my elements. Seems like I need a knowledge refresher.

(and by the way, I could Google this, or any other chatbots, but I want to hear from your experience).

[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.

[cxr]

This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand.

> 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.

No shit.

It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" that you very well know exists and have referenced by name in this thread.

If you want to make an argument for the non-existence of HTML6, then fine; you're making a sound, totally defensible argument that no such thing exists. (A strawman, because nobody here—besides you—actually mentioned HTML6, but a verifiably true fact nonetheless.)

But it makes for totally asinine argument for the claim that "There is no HTML5" and that it "doesn't exist". You'll take the W3C's stamp of approval? Great, it's right there—available for review now just as it was an hour ago, or at any other time after October 2014. This is an incontrovertible fact. Feel free to actually engage with this or any of the other facts you have been confronted with, rather than setting unsatisfiable goals like asking for the "current edition" that is "titled HTML5".