[LINK] ArsT: 'HTML to lose the version number'

[Roger Clarke]

[Comments at end]


HTML to lose the version number
By Ryan Paul | Last updated 2 days ago - 22-23ish Jan 2010
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/html-to-lose-the-version-number.ars

In a blog entry Thursday, HTML specification editor Ian Hickson 
announced that the HTML specification will no longer have a version 
number attached. The WHATWG version of the specification will be 
treated as a "living standard" that will evolve organically as 
additions are integrated, sort of like a rolling release model.

The need for clear HTML versioning has diminished and is arguably 
superfluous. Browser vendors tend to implement new HTML features at 
their own pace regardless of the status of the standardization 
process. Web developers will adopt the new features when there are 
mature implementations available across enough mainstream browsers. 
This used to be a glacially slow process, but it has accelerated 
considerably over the past few years. A significant number of HTML 5 
features are already in widespread use despite the fact that the new 
version of the standard hasn't been officially finalized.

"In practice, the WHATWG has basically been operating like this for 
years, and indeed we were going to change the name last year but 
ended up deciding to wait a bit since people still used the term 
'HTML5' a lot," Hickson wrote. "However, the term is now basically 
being used to mean anything Web-standards-related, so it's time to 
move on!"

The decision to remove the version number is little more than a move 
to strip away a small bit of unnecessary bureaucracy and acknowledge 
how the HTML standards ecosystem actually functions. Hickson notes 
that W3C, which is technically responsible for publishing the HTML 
standard, will likely have "snapshots" that reflect stable milestones 
of the ever-changing WHATWG version.

[A fundamental user requirement is confidence in the integrity of the 
applications and the data that they depend on.  Related needs are 
consistency in processing logic and user interface, and communication 
of changes to them, preferably in advance, with access provided to 
documentation that enables them to think through the ramifications of 
the changes.

[During the last two decades, developers have become slovenly to the 
point of recklessness.  The abandonment of the design phase ensured 
speedier delivery, but also error-prone and ill-fitting applications. 
The abandonment of data models and data dictionaries led to lack of 
clarity about what data means, and hence rubbery semantics.  The 
abandonment of supplier-provided documentation resulted in 
uncertainties about what applications do and how they're meant to be 
used.

[The abandonment of versioning, justified by the spiffy-sounding term 
RAD, meant that features may or may not be present, and instability 
is assured.

[Now we're reached the point that a standard-setting organisation has 
destroyed the integrity of their standards, using the justification 
that integrity, reliability and stability aren't respected by anyone 
else, so why should *we* bother ourselves with it.

[Corporations, and consumer organisations, have permitted this 
nonsense to become mainstream, because they've failed to sue their 
software suppliers for harm arising from the lack of integrity, the 
unreliability and the instability of applications.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University