TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

HTML6 Concept

85 pointsby Theyeardover 10 years ago

40 comments

arcatekover 10 years ago
I think the title (and domain name) are a bit misleading: that&#x27;s not HTML6, because it doesn&#x27;t appear to be endorsed by anything related to the web standards (Mozilla, W3C, etc). That&#x27;s MyHTML, sure, but not really HTML6.<p>Funnily enough, at a first glance it looked like a real proposal, then I looked again and it appeared as a joke (I mean ... &lt;html:html&gt; and &lt;form:form&gt; are a bit satirical), and then I looked the repo and there&#x27;s enough issues to think that it is actually real.
评论 #8688293 未加载
评论 #8688634 未加载
评论 #8689383 未加载
simonsarrisover 10 years ago
I hate to shit on people&#x27;s work[1] on HN because everyone else does it but I earnestly think this will get filed in the same bin as XHTML, aka &quot;no web developer actually cares about this so no one will write it and it will die an awkward, forgotten death.&quot;<p>HTML5 did some very important things. Mainly it wrestled back the web from plugins.<p><i>Hey, remember Flash?</i><p>Isn&#x27;t that great! That in 2014 I can say &quot;Remember Flash?&quot; Flash had such an insane grip on the web and now it&#x27;s nearly gone! <i>Not nearly,</i> you might argue, but there are extremely few serious pages left that <i>depend</i> on flash. We&#x27;ve come a huge way since 2009.<p>It&#x27;s crazy to think back, honestly. I&#x27;m amazed at how the grip of flash has receded. I would not have guessed in 2008 that this was where we&#x27;d be. I am a happy web developer.<p>This just doesn&#x27;t solve the same scope of problems. It might be useful to <i>some people</i>, just like XHTML, but it&#x27;s not worth building a new buzzword paradigm over.<p>[1] <i>Everyone</i> who writes a post like this deserves to be commended. Putting your own opinions out there is <i>hard,</i> so kudos to the author.
评论 #8687923 未加载
评论 #8689966 未加载
评论 #8688715 未加载
IgorPartolaover 10 years ago
Some good ideas here but some terrible ones as well. First, &lt;html:whatever&gt; is terrible. We don&#x27;t need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that&#x27;s a different story). &lt;media type=&quot;image&quot;&gt; would be sufficient. Even better, something like this:<p><pre><code> &lt;media type=&quot;image&quot;&gt; &lt;src href=&quot;&#x2F;foo.png&quot;&gt; &lt;src href=&quot;&#x2F;foo-2x.png&quot; type=&quot;high-definition&quot;&gt; &lt;&#x2F;media&gt; </code></pre> I do like the idea of not having generic &lt;div&gt;&#x27;s everywhere. You can already do this with, for example, Angular. Basically, aside from the pre-defined elements (div, span, input, etc.) I want to just use whatever element I choose myself. I should then be able to style it how I want, and by default it can be, let&#x27;s say, a borderless, 0 margin, 0 padding, transparent, block element. That way I can use add &lt;wrapper&gt; and style it how I want. Saves keystrokes. This gets me into trouble if later browsers decide to actually support &lt;wrapper&gt; with different semantics than I intended, but I am sure we could work around this somehow without resorting to &lt;html:wrapper&gt; namespacing.<p>Lastly, I really would love to be able to define element <i>behavior</i>. I want to say that &lt;calendar&gt; is a link, until you click on it, then it opens a calendar, and fires such and such events, etc. Basically, instead of adding a script tag to the base template that defines how $(&#x27;.calendar&#x27;) should work, I want to define it globally, a la Angular&#x27;s directives, then have this happen for the entire site. If the browser allowed me to have finer grained control over user input (exact keystrokes, position of cursor, etc.), I could then re-create &lt;input type=&quot;text&quot;&gt;! You might say &quot;well, we already have that, the browser does it&quot;, but the beauty of doing it yourself is that you can define more complex rules for it than just &quot;type in text&quot;. You could, for example, easily define the format of it without having to resort to ugly hacks (think a mm&#x2F;dd&#x2F;yyyy type input, or an insurance subscriber ID with a very specific format).
评论 #8688516 未加载
评论 #8688393 未加载
评论 #8688437 未加载
评论 #8688349 未加载
评论 #8688672 未加载
debacleover 10 years ago
HTML will never be semantic. The whole idea should be scrapped. HTML is inextricably bound to CSS in 2014, and has become more and more about presentation and less and less about data.<p>Which is fine. We have JSON and XML for data. I would rather see some cohesive standards for JSON data formats, because that is the future. HTML is just the glue between CSS and Ajax requests.
评论 #8687911 未加载
评论 #8689233 未加载
scottcanoniover 10 years ago
I am holding out for HTML9. <a href="http://html9responsiveboilerstrapjs.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;html9responsiveboilerstrapjs.com&#x2F;</a>
Finsterover 10 years ago
&gt; HTML6 is conceptually HTML with XML like namespaces.<p>Aaaaaannnnnndddddd I&#x27;m done. Thanks, but no thanks.
dkopiover 10 years ago
&lt;html:html&gt; &lt;html:head&gt; &lt;html:title&gt;&lt;&#x2F;html:title&gt; &lt;html:meta&gt;<p>I simply can&#x27;t imagine anyone wanting to adopt this. It seems like a lot of effort was put into the concept, and there are some great suggestions, but the added bloat goes against adopting the proposed solution.
评论 #8688561 未加载
评论 #8688296 未加载
bastawhizover 10 years ago
<p><pre><code> &quot;HTML6 is conceptually HTML with XML like namespaces.&quot; </code></pre> Well, there goes backwards compatibility. This sounds like a poor attempt to modularize markup. Web components + shadow DOM have already solved this problem. React solves this problem.<p><pre><code> &lt;html:select type=&quot;calendar&quot; name=&quot;the_calendar&quot; range=&quot;10&#x2F;10&#x2F;10-10&#x2F;10&#x2F;11&quot;&gt; </code></pre> How is that better than<p><pre><code> &lt;input type=&quot;date&quot; min=&quot;2010-10-10&quot; max=&quot;2011-10-10&quot;&gt; </code></pre> in any way shape or form? Hint: it isn&#x27;t.<p><pre><code> &quot;there is a void that HTML5 has yet to fill and that void is truly semantic markup.&quot; </code></pre> The spec I see here doesn&#x27;t even satisfy this requirement! It simply adds namespaces to existing elements and changes the syntax for some form elements. For instance:<p><pre><code> &lt;html:media src=&quot;images&#x2F;logo.jpg&quot; type=&quot;image&quot;&gt; vs. &lt;img src=&quot;images&#x2F;logo.jpg&quot;&gt; </code></pre> Which is more semantic? Neither. They&#x27;re identical in every way. Why is it better for the browser to figure out the type rather than using &lt;video&gt; or &lt;audio&gt;? The author makes it seem like this is an advantage, but frankly I can&#x27;t see it. With HTML5, I get all sorts of methods for controlling media types based on the DOM node. I don&#x27;t need volume controls on an image. Is it really that hard to decide which tag to use? Your computer can do three things:<p>* Display something that might move and makes no sound (image)<p>* Display something that moves and makes sound (video)<p>* Play sound (audio)<p>If--as the developer--you have no idea which of these three things your asset is going to do, you&#x27;ve got bigger problems than being burdened by figuring out which tag to use.<p>IMO, this spec fails to solve a problem that doesn&#x27;t exist.
TheCorehover 10 years ago
This is all already possible with current HTML, except for the namespace stuff (Which is too verbose, and was ditched after the failed XHTML effort, since it never really caught on anyway).<p>You can already create your own custom HTML tags with the `document.registerElement()` API. And then use all the semantic elements you want. You can even add custom rendering and logic to then via the shadow DOM.<p>There&#x27;s a lot of existing elements you can already use: <a href="http://customelements.io" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;customelements.io</a><p>Browser support is not 100% there yet, but <a href="http://polymer-project.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;polymer-project.org</a> provides a polyfill that works on IE9+.
untogover 10 years ago
<i>HTML6 is conceptually HTML with XML like namespaces.</i><p>Where is my ejector seat?
dutchbritover 10 years ago
Having &lt;html:a href=&quot;&#x2F;cats&quot;&gt;Cats&lt;&#x2F;a&gt; as a link just looks weird.<p>What&#x27;s wrong with just using &lt;head&gt;, &lt;html&gt; and &lt;a&gt; instead of &lt;html:head&gt;, &lt;html:a&gt; etc...?<p>Bad proposal IMO.
cabirumover 10 years ago
Isn&#x27;t html5 supposed to be a living standard [1], meaning continuous updates and no html:next spec?<p>[1] <a href="https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wiki.whatwg.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standar...</a>
评论 #8688680 未加载
评论 #8688118 未加载
tallesover 10 years ago
Call it XHTML 2.0 or something like that. Calling your experiment HTML6 is a <i>terrible</i> idea.<p><i>Terrible</i> because not only it disrupts completely on how HTML matured, but also because there won&#x27;t be any more HTML versions from now on; HTML is now a living versionless standard.<p>Sorry, my intention is not to just bash your idea. I personally disliked it because it resembles xml, something that I learned to hate. But that&#x27;s me.<p>But please, don&#x27;t call it <i>HTML6</i>.
xrstfover 10 years ago
On the issue tracker (<a href="https://github.com/OscarGodson/HTML6/issues/17#issuecomment-21903036" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;OscarGodson&#x2F;HTML6&#x2F;issues&#x2F;17#issuecomment-...</a>), it&#x27;s stated that this &quot;HTML6&quot; is meant for developing applications, not marking up documents. Which strikes me as odd, because he is pushing for semantics but is not targetting the one usage of HTML where it would make sense: Documents.<p>In apps, I care little about semantics. div-soup all the way, why not? Using non-standard attributes? Sure! As long as the browser behaves as an application platform and only my app has to understand the markup, then doing all this is fine [to me].<p>But for documents, it&#x27;s a different thing. I want those to be as accessible as possible. <i>This</i> is the place to use semantic markup. I want to use &lt;date&gt; and similar things because I want search engines to understand my document. But &quot;HTML6&quot; is not meant for this?<p>So... I can see where the author wanted to go with this, but it just doesn&#x27;t make sense to me.
hbbioover 10 years ago
It&#x27;s an interesting proposal.<p>But it breaks compatibility with what has been HTML since first version, by forcing to prefix existing HTML tags.<p>Rather, it should propose to enhance the new semantic tags by adding a prefix, for instance &lt;e:calendar&gt;...&lt;&#x2F;e&gt; (or &lt;&#x2F;e:calendar&gt; for readability) while preserving existing tags.
danschumannover 10 years ago
To achieve what the poster wants, wouldn&#x27;t it be better to<p><pre><code> &lt;html&gt; &lt;body&gt; &lt;h1&gt; Keep the stuff we already have &lt;&#x2F;h1&gt; &lt;#calender&gt; &lt;.calender-header&gt;And just make id and class syntax better?&lt;&#x2F;.calender-header&gt; &lt;.month&gt; &lt;.day&gt;1&lt;&#x2F;.day&gt; &lt;&#x2F;.month&gt; &lt;&#x2F;.calender&gt; &lt;&#x2F;body&gt; &lt;&#x2F;html&gt; </code></pre> I don&#x27;t see them removing the way html works, but I could see adding in a way to do classes easier.
randallover 10 years ago
Is there anything preventing you from using non-native elements right now? I mean the &lt;html:html&gt; weirdness aside... can&#x27;t modern browsers just recognize current &lt;weird&gt;&lt;tags&gt; and process them as such? Why not just have HTML keywords be hands off for your app and then do your own thing with the element syntax? That&#x27;s what Angularians are doing.
评论 #8688284 未加载
jpatteover 10 years ago
There&#x27;s even a typo in the first example:<p><pre><code> &lt;html:a href=&quot;&#x2F;cats&quot;&gt;Cats&lt;&#x2F;a&gt; &lt;html:a href=&quot;&#x2F;dogs&quot;&gt;Dogs&lt;&#x2F;a&gt; &lt;html:a href=&quot;&#x2F;rain&quot;&gt;Rain&lt;&#x2F;a&gt; </code></pre> I guess forgetting the namespace in the closing tag will happen A LOT to everyone.
restlessdesignover 10 years ago
This makes zero mention of shadow DOM or web components, which strikes me as somewhat ignorant on the author’s part.
评论 #8688176 未加载
jayroxover 10 years ago
just feels backwards to me. the &lt;html:* &gt; stuff seems like it should all be under the default html namespace and assumed. where as the other stuff may be better suited to be namespaced.<p>just seems like a waste adding &quot;html:&quot; to all of the root&#x2F;core elements.
评论 #8687933 未加载
评论 #8687936 未加载
rikacometover 10 years ago
A concept always invites picky comments, but one can be subtle about it. I agree on few tags, like &lt;logo&gt; , &lt;calender&gt; , &lt;nav&gt; .<p>but I feel there is still more that is needed. Specially with regards to &lt;select&gt; and &lt;input&gt; tags. Have you come across how tricky it can be to style both? Both of these require more simple styling and controls. Also, I would very much welcome some sort of basic encryption for data submitted by &lt;input&gt; tags, given that many don&#x27;t need SSL certificate level of security, but being totally naked is not okay as well.
iraldirover 10 years ago
The one good idea here is merely the media tag, which could be useful for CMS for instance. But that&#x27;s it. Namespaces are already too much in XML, don&#x27;t bring them into HTML, please.
amvpover 10 years ago
I&#x27;m almost disappointed to see a post like this with no comments - because while it&#x27;s often quite negative - HN comments often provide me with context and a counterpoint that&#x27;s really quite useful.<p>My first reaction is that I quite like it. It&#x27;s more semantic than dozens of nested divs and spans, and perhaps that&#x27;s not as useful for machine generated code - for those of us coding html by hand.
评论 #8687970 未加载
elchiefover 10 years ago
Is this a joke? Literally the dumbest thing I&#x27;ve seen in years. No one, ever, is going to namespace every html element.
kingkool68over 10 years ago
You can already use whatever HTML element you want for CSS and JS hooks. I too have dreamed of a way to use whatever element you want way back in 2009 <a href="http://www.russellheimlich.com/blog/death-to-the-div/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.russellheimlich.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;death-to-the-div&#x2F;</a>
outsidethepartyover 10 years ago
I feel like being backwards-incompatible with html5 (while using the same doctype!) is a tiny bit of a deal-killer.
agumonkeyover 10 years ago
&lt;html:media type...&gt; seems like the wrong path to simplification, namely redundancy.<p><pre><code> - The file extension carry the type information (but may be missing) - The Content-Type MIME too - The actual data stream also (think $ file some-media) - And html6 adds an attribute</code></pre>
wtetznerover 10 years ago
It seems like there&#x27;s some conflicting messages in this. At first, the author suggests that getting rid of an attribute and using the tag name is better. But then they immediately suggest the opposite for &lt;img&gt;, &lt;embed&gt;, &lt;video&gt;, &lt;audio&gt; etc.
vxNsrover 10 years ago
So I&#x27;m not the least bit familiar with XML, (so ignore me if this doesn&#x27;t make sense) but why do we need the &lt;html:*&gt; part of the element?<p>This seems like a great idea but if it requires all that redundancy ( &lt;html:html&gt; ) I have trouble seeing this used in practice.
lvillaniover 10 years ago
In an hypothetical future, with XHTML now effectively gone and HTML5 becoming an ever increasing jumbled mess, if I were to _really_ have the chance to reinvent HTML, I would reimplement it in terms of S-expressions. Easier to parse and better on the eyes.
aaronlumsdenover 10 years ago
I&#x27;m not a fan of this idea at all and I think the title and website are very misleading.
michaeltover 10 years ago
I&#x27;ve heard a bit about &#x27;semantic markup&#x27; for the web but I don&#x27;t really understand it.<p>I&#x27;d love it if someone could tell me, as an example, how semantic markup would support displaying a syntax-highlighted a block of code in a web page?
0x006Aover 10 years ago
looks a bit like xhtml. whats the point? html is not xml. why would it work this time?
gonzalocasasover 10 years ago
Not sure if this is a really bad joke or... Nah, it&#x27;s gotta be a joke. Right?
mahdaviover 10 years ago
&lt;html:html&gt; Seriously?
评论 #8688763 未加载
评论 #8688620 未加载
jfmercerover 10 years ago
The author seems to confuse HTML for XML. Basically, what he wants is XML.
RyanMcGrealover 10 years ago
I&#x27;m confused by the &lt;calendar&gt; example near the top: you can already define your own elements in HTML5 (and backport it to older browsers via html5shiv.js).
mdumicover 10 years ago
I lost you somewhere around XML...
bungleover 10 years ago
Namespaces in XML was the biggest mistake in XML.
评论 #8688743 未加载
swalshover 10 years ago
There&#x27;s only one thing I want in my future web client, and that&#x27;s to not have to use javascript. Dart, or compilation in general is not quite the savior i&#x27;m hoping for...<p>I want to be able to write C#, or Ruby, or python, and reference it on a page, and for it to run. Gosh that would be great. I wouldn&#x27;t even mind if its a very limited version of the language.<p>Edit: confused why i&#x27;m downvoted... hmmm
评论 #8689710 未加载
评论 #8688332 未加载
评论 #8688383 未加载
评论 #8688759 未加载