Tuesday, November 11th, 2008
What’s not in HTML 5?
<p>In Mark’s latest installment of This Week in HTML 5 he delves into what ISN’T in the spec:It has been suggested (1, 2, 3, &c.) that HTML 5 is trying to bite off more than it can metaphorically chew. It is true that it is a large specification, and it might benefit from being split into several pieces. But it is not true that it includes everything but the kitchen sink.
For example, HTML 5 will not
- deprecate
<textarea>- allow arbitrary markup in
<option>- include an
<altinput>element (reference)- allow authors to localize the “Browse” button that represents a file input control
- allow authors to localize the open-file dialog that opens in response to activating a file input control
- mandate that browsers display a progress bar during file upload
- limit the number of selected checkboxes or options in a web form
- allow web authors to specify a regular expression constraint on a
<textarea>- support form controls associated with more than one form
- change the default type of
<button>- allow web authors to mark form fields as auto-tabbing
- support form seeding
- rename the
HTMLCollection.lengthattribute to.count- expose a native JSON parser for web content
- support client-side includes
- try to compete with Docbook
Related Content:
4.5 rating from 17 votes
A note about having a JSON parser: The upcoming ECMAScript 3.1 spec is meant to define the API for this. So really, we get it anyway.
“mandate that browsers display a progress bar during file upload”
WTF, Mikko? You want to mandate what colour grundies I wear while I code it too?
@jtresidder:
the keyword was “not”
Why do you assume that “HTML 5 will not allow authors to localize the “Browse” button that represents a file input control”?
Have you checked if browser vendors are not willing to implement the lang attribute in this control?
>>the keyword was “not”
.
My take was that the article was a list of complaint about the things missing from the spec. Read that way, jtresidder’s comment makes perfect sense.
.
Sort of a “I can’t believe how big this spec is, given all the things I want that are missing.”
The article is poorly worded “what is NOT included” as all those this should have been implemented.
Support for client-side-includes? Come on! Who’s the developer that doesn’t know to use include() (or similar function in other programming languages)?
Some of the developers floating around that mailing list apparently…