Web designers live and die by HTML and its XML derivative, XHTML. It is our bread and butter, the foundation of everything we do. No matter how advanced our programming techniques become or the complexity of the sites and Web-based applications we develop, at the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of end users get (X)HTML served up within their browsers. (X)HTML is not new technology. In fact, the most recent standardized version of the platform was codified in 2000.
Some people argue that this means it was made so well, there hasn’t been a need to produce a newer standard. Others argue evolution is long overdue. One group of “others,” Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), is arguing strongly in favor of offering a more diverse and up-to-date toolbox for designers through the creation of HTML 5.
Its members’ efforts have gained considerable momentum with many decision-makers. Ian Hickson has taken on editor responsibilities, in preparation to submit the HTML5 specification to the W3C for review and release candidate status.
I can see why WHATWG picked up this torch. W3C (apparently) is known for operating in a closed-door environment, and part of the operating credo of WHATWG is that its processes are entirely, open, public and transparent. Anyone can participate in the development of standards, to whatever degree anyone feels comfortable doing so. Also, members have identified what they see as deficiencies in current specifications, elements that should be present, or minor errors that should be corrected. Indeed, when you read HTML 5 markup, it is not exactly a foreign language to designers adept in (X)HTML.
As much as I sympathize with their position, I’m generally opposed to the standardization of HTML 5, for a few reasons.
1. This new standard tries very hard to determine exactly what content is, almost too hard. For instance, the current W3C specifications make it clear tables are meant for tabular data, and should only be used to display information which would otherwise lose its context if not displayed as rows and fields. The key here is “should.” HTML 5 makes displaying non-tabular data within tables a point of invalidity. I draw a line in my mind between a specification determining how a site should be structured and attempting to interpret our content. I understand the desire to ensure development tools are used correctly, but that should be a separate piece of documentation. The platform spec is the toolbox. Save the lessons on how to use the tools properly for documentation outside of the spec.
2. This new standard is trying to be everything to everyone, adding new elements to predefine content at a very minute level. It sets up restricted class names, which is puzzling at best. Why the authors don’t trust people to use class names properly, or try to teach this outside of the specification is beyond me. I can come up with a legitimate alternative use for practically every codified class name, which would conflict with the specification, but only because WHATWG doesn’t like its reserved words being used for anything else. Also, while HTML tags and attributes are standardized to English, it is a bit arrogant on the part of WHATWG to presume classes should be English as well. If you have a French site, a warning (one of the restricted classes) shouldn’t be called “warning.” It should be called “avertissement.” This is just another example of a spec overstepping itself, going beyond the structure and into the content. Bad HTML 5, bad! No biscuit!
3. WHATWG added the tag to HTML. Why? Because it didn’t like people using Definition Lists for dialog. So now there’s a tag for that. But, where’s the tag? Or the tag for restaurant menu items and descriptions? Or the tag for sports teams rosters and bios? Or any one of thousands of tags that might be needed by Web developers to define a very specific piece of content? Wait a minute…we already have these tags; we can create them as needed using XML! True, XML is not fully supported by browser manufacturers, but trying to dream up every possible tagging scenario and cram it into a new spec is a ridiculous way to try to solve browser deficiencies. Speaking of which…
4. From a practical standpoint, codifying and adopting a whole new specification is going to be a frustrating procedure at best, especially with the speed at which certain, more commercial manufacturers adopt specs and the lack of accuracy in interpreting them.
5. Here’s the kicker. HTML and XHTML aren’t broken. They may not be 100% perfect, but they’re pretty darned close, especially when looking at XML. Browsers have come a long way in the last 8-10 years, and we are very close to having standards that function consistently across browsing environments. We are exactly one browser away from having XML freely available for use, and CSS implementation gets tighter with every version release.
HTML 5 attempts to fill a void that, in my opinion, doesn’t exist. This isn’t to crap on their efforts. Obviously a lot of time and thought has gone into the development of HTML 5, and the principles will argue vehemently against my position, to be sure. But my intuition tells me if I take HTML 5 to the streets, the development community will largely agree with my position that HTML 5 is an unnecessary and superfluous specification, our current standards are not flawed enough to warrant it, and it is not the answer to whatever deficiencies people may realistically perceive. At this point, work on fixing the browsing environments, not the standards.
So, prove me right. Or prove me wrong! I’d love to hear what others think about the subject 
About Paul Hirsch
Paul Hirsch is a moderator on WebHostingTalk.com, the largest Web hosting community on the Internet, and he is a founder and Core Team member of the International Web Developers Network (IWDN). He is co-owner of Studio1337, a Web design and development company located in Akron/Canton, Ohio, West. Hartford, Conn. and Teesside, U.K. Paul received his bachelors degree from Kent State University in Electronic Media Production, with minors in Computer Information Systems and Sociology. He earned a masters degree in Media Management from Kent as well. Through his theWHIR blog, he will offer perspectives on developments in design technology for the people who create what Web hosts host.
No related posts.
