The WHATWG are working on the draft for Web Applications 1.0, which is about “extensions to HTML to make it more suitable for application development” and it “…represents a new version of HTML4 and XHTML1, along with a new version of the associated DOM2 HTML API“.
First, what is WHATWG?
It is a loose unofficial collaboration of Web browser manufacturers and interested parties who wish to develop new technologies designed to allow authors to write and deploy Applications over the World Wide Web.
Second, it will be interesting to see if the W3C will acknowlede it.
Third, I’m not sure that HTML 5, as Anne calls it, is a good name for, it feels more competent than just a newer version of HTML.
However, maybe that name is only referring to the HTML part of it?
So, is this a good initiative? Or should we just stay with the current W3C recommendations about XHTML 1 and XHTML 2?
I don’t know.
What do you think?
PS. A nod to Anne for pointing me to this in the first place. DS.
Whether the W3C will adopt it is indeed a good question, but I think it's safe to be hopeful there.
As for the name, I agree, but I can't come up with a better name at all, myself. It's neither HTML nor XHTML, yet it's both of them. Naming it one or the other seems a bit off, to me. I propose NHTML – New HyperText Markup Language. =)
Given the participants' connection to W3C, yes, it is likely to happen.
Regarding the name, Web Applications is what it is about. So maybe just WA?
WAML! – Web Applications Markup Language
WAHT? – Web Applications HyperText
THWAP – The Hypertext Web Applications Project
I like the last one best 😉
I can live with WAML! 🙂
I can't remember where I saw it, but someone suggested HAppy (HTML Applications /something-or-other/). 🙂
That's a good name! 😀
I remember seeing it somewhere too…
It came up on the mailing list. However, as HTML5 will include Web Forms 2 I am not sure if it is a good name.
It does include more than you would expect from just a markup language, but I'm not sure if that is relevant enough. O well, eventually it will be decided.
I do think the W3C will be involved as they are also involved with Web Forms 2 at the moment and this specification will supercede that one. Also, if many browsers that are members of the W3C implement this the W3C has to acknowledge that and do something with it.
Good to see you here!
> Also, if many browsers that are members of the W3C implement this the W3C has to acknowledge that and do something with it.
This is an interesting point! They definitely have to acknowledge it then, but the question is if it's the way to go.
It comes across as a small rebellion againt W3C, like "we're not totally happy with the specifications, so let's create our own, and implement them in enough web browsers so the W3C has to include them".
Kind of like submission by force.
Well, the W3C is based on membership.
Besides, the W3C is looking together with the WHATWG at the moment how they can cooperate and produce the standards outside the normal W3C production process. At least, as far as I understand it.
If that's the case, I, for one, think it's a good thing if W3C collaborate (further) with WHATWG.
Hopefully it will result in something astonishing! 🙂