HTML TUTORIAL PART 1 …
WELCOME GUYS
LETS GET STARTED>>>>>>>>
In the beginning (1993), there was
Tim Berners-Lee, and Tim created HTML. He said "this is good" and
proposed a draft to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a standards
organization. IETF drafts require implementations, so the HTML draft referenced
Mosaic, a web browser that later became Netscape, which later became Firefox.
Mosaic, of course, would have been rather worthless without HTML. So a
symbiosis between browsers and web standards drove the web from the beginning.
You may not have heard of XHTML 2,
because browser vendors fell all over themselves in their rush to not implement
it...
When the original HTML draft expired
in 1994, the IETF created the first HTML Working Group (HTMLWG), who created
HTML 2. Also in 1994, Tim created the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), with a
mission To lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing
protocols and guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the Web. If that
sounds like what the HTMLWG was doing, that's because it was. The two standards
bodies didn't run in parallel for long.
In 1996, after a series of additions
to HTML 2, the IETF HTMLWG was closed and further work on HTML moved to the
W3C. The W3C published HTML 3.2 and HTML 4, both in 1997. In December of 1999,
HTML 4.01 was published. In the seventh year (1998), the W3C rested. And
rested. And rested. HTML hasn't changed since. In summary: one man created
HTML, two standards organizations worked on it for 5 years, and then it wasn't changed
for 10 years.
And then there was XHTML. Backing up
a bit, HTML was always based on SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language,
an International Standards Organization (ISO) standard. Without getting into
the details of SGML, many saw it as too ambiguous for a reliable web. Enter
XML. The eXtensible Markup Language, is a stricter subset of SGML, with the
goal of clearer communication. It's also, as the name implies, designed for
extensibility.
The W3C didn't actually rest in
1998; it only rested on HTML, while publishing XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.0 is
essentially HTML 4 as XML instead of SGML. Many web publishers saw XHTML as the
future and started publishing it instead of HTML 4. Some didn't see much value
in XML syntax and decided not to switch, or to move back after trying it. One
of the latter group was a guy named Ian Hickson, who in 2002 published a much-cited
article on one key problem with XHTML: Microsoft's Internet Explorer
browser didn't (still doesn't) handle XHTML well. Sometimes the symbiosis
between browsers and standards doesn't work out so well. More on Ian later.
Like HTML, nothing has really
changed with XHTML since 1999. But not for lack of trying. In 2002, the W3C
first published XHTML 2, a complete rethinking of XHTML, this time less (not at
all) focused on mirroring HTML 4 and more (completely) focused on
extensibility. You may not have heard of XHTML 2, because browser vendors fell
all over themselves in their rush to not implement it, so it never went
anywhere. Symbiosis.
Many attribute XHTML 2's failure to
the lack of compatibility with HTML 4 or XHTML 1. Of those who even noticed
XHTML 2, one of the most scathing critiques of it came from Mark Pilgrim who
summarized a 2003 article with Standards are bullshit. XHTML
is a crock. The W3C is irrelevant. Ouch. More on Mark later.
Amidst the lack of progress on XHTML
2, there was a workshop in 2004 in which some people decided the W3C was no
longer managing the web very well. So they created their own organization, the
Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG). To quote the WHATWG's FAQ:
The WHATWG was founded by
individuals of Apple, the Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software in 2004, after
a W3C workshop. Apple, Mozilla and Opera were becoming increasingly concerned
about the W3C’s direction with XHTML, lack of interest in HTML and apparent
disregard for the needs of real-world authors. So, in response, these
organizations set out with a mission to address these concerns and the Web
Hypertext Application Technology Working Group was born.
So now you can answer questions
about HTML5 without even looking at the draft, which is handy, because the
draft is 400+ pages long.
Notably absent from that list of
browser vendors is Microsoft, vendor of the most popular widely-used
browser. The WHATWG nonetheless pressed forward working on what they called Web
Apps 1.0, an incremental improvement to HTML, which people quickly started
referring to as HTML5. "But wait," you say, "I thought the W3C
was in charge of HTML." Well yeah, so did they. So did the IETF. Remember
that?
The initial
WHATWG announcement was written by Ian Hickson, who careful readers
will remember from his earlier criticism of XHTML, specifically Microsoft's
handling of it. You can follow the WHATWG's own take on their work at their blog,
which is updated by Mark Pilgrim, who is also writing a book about HTML5.
You may remember him as the guy who said XHTML is a crock. The W3C is
irrelevant. I did say this would be an interesting story.
Perhaps hoping the kids would get
bored and disperse on their own, the W3C didn't directly tell the WHATWG to get
off their lawn. They didn't much react to HTML5 at all until 2006, when W3C
director Tim Berners-Lee (remember him? guy who started all this?) wrote Reinventing
HTML in which he said Some things are clearer with hindsight of
several years. It is necessary to evolve HTML incrementally. That was a
significant (complete) change from the W3C's previous position, essentially
that HTML was dead, to be non-incrementally replaced by XHTML 2. If the new
HTMLWG sounded a lot like the WHATWG, that's because it was.
But unlike the previous transition
from the IETF to the W3C, the WHATWG didn't simply hand control of HTML back to
the W3C. Even after the WHATWG's HTML 5 draft was formally adopted by the
HTMLWG in 2007, the WHATWG continued working on it. They did start working more
closely with the W3C, but the relationship is ... what do the kids call it on
Facebook now? ... it's complicated.
If you look at the HTML5 draft at
the W3C, you'll find this explanation of who is creating the spec:
The W3C HTML Working Group is the
W3C working group responsible for this specification's progress along the W3C
Recommendation track... This specification is also being produced by the
WHATWG.
The
HTML Working Group is chaired by Sam Ruby of IBM and Chris Wilson
of, wait for it... Microsoft. Ian is the editor of the HTML5 draft, and a
member of both the HTMLWG and the WHATWG. Chris once said I would hope in the eventuality of time the
WHAT-WG would simply dissolve because it’s no longer necessary... in my opinion
HTML is not in the hands of the WHAT-WG and never has been, despite calling a
spec or set of specs 'HTML 5'; it belongs to the W3C.
Whereas Ian once said The HTML5 work isn’t using the traditional
W3C approach, and will never use a consensus approach so long as I am editor.
In summary: HTML5 has been developed within the WHATWG, intentionally avoiding
W3C processes, but with plans to have it be adopted by the W3C, via a group
chaired by someone who thinks the WHATWG never had any authority to work on it
in the first place.
Meanwhile, the W3C announced 2
months ago that XHTML 2 was officially dead. HTML5 does include
XHTML5, an XML syntax of the language. So XHTML in general isn't dead, but it's
not exactly healthy. Given the lack of any other path forward, it does seem
very likely that somehow HTML5 will become the recommended web publishing
format of both the WHATWG and the W3C's HTMLWG. Somehow.
One thing that is entirely clear
about the future of HTML5 is that browsers will support it. That's clear
because they already support it. One aspect of it, canvas,
has been supported, and heavily relied upon, for years. If nothing
else, HTML5 has already reversed the relationship between browsers and
standards bodies. Instead of the W3C all but begging browsers to implement
standards, browsers are now impatiently waiting for the W3C to recommend the
standards they've already implemented.
So now you can answer questions
about HTML5 without even looking at the draft, which is handy, because the
draft is 400+ pages long. Why is there a new <video> tag in HTML5?
Because some browser vendor (maybe the one that also owns a large video site)
wanted it. Why are there so many scriptable interface elements in HTML5?
Because some browser vendor (maybe the one selling phones without Flash
support) wants them. Why is there no support for RDFa in HTML5? Apparently no
browser vendor wanted it.
Beyond understanding how HTML5 got
here, this background should also give you a good idea of where it's headed.
Until the next major shift, browser vendors will be driving standards. If you
want a <pegacorn> tag in HTML 6, get it supported by a browser or two.
In our next update we will talk about the type of software you can install to start your coding .. ... and next we start our coding when you have already installed the software we need for our coding..... FOR ANY COMPLAINTS AND ENQUIRY contact us @ timmydavid67@gmail.com or oluwaflexxy@gmail.com
إرسال تعليق