Is It Time for a 'Kinder, Gentler HTML'?

jg21 writes "Via the Web 2.0 Journal, a worthy link to Yahoo! Architect and JSON inventor Douglas Crockford's latest ideas to fix HTML. He's categorically not a fan of HTML 5, which is still just an Editor's Draft and not endorsed by W3C yet. Crock puts forward ten ideas that in his view would provide extensibility without complexity, adding that the simplification of HTML he is proposing would reduce the cost of training of web developers and incorporates the best practices of AJAX development. From the article: 'The problems with HTML will not be solved by making it bigger and more complicated. I think instead we should generalize what it does well, while excising features that are problematic. HTML can be made into a general application delivery format without disrupting its original role as a document format.'"

Re:Interesting Ideas

[AKAImBatman]

I especially like the "module" concept

There is probably some irony in the fact that inter-document communications [whatwg.org] feature in HTML 5 would allow him to implement his "module" concept in an HTML 5 compliant browser. In fact, the HTML 5 proposal is actually superior to his "module" proposal in the method it uses to receive messages. Rather than polling for a JSON packet (which could be costly in both processor time and responsiveness), the HTML 5 solution adapts the existing DOM 2 event model to make the messaging smooth, seamless, and fast.

Re:Not Impressed

[AKAImBatman]

Seeing as you seem to be involved with the HTML 5 proposal

If you count arguing on the mailing list a few times and coming up with a new Canvas adapter (still WIP) for IE, then I suppose. :-)

When will HTML 5 be finished?
It is estimated that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later. This will be approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004.

Reading that FAQ entry in its entirety helps clarify the issue; at least for me. The WHATWG is being pragmatic about how long it will take them to both get a 100% complete standard (it has continued to evolve, even after being submitted to the W3C) and get everyone on board with it. People don't realize quite how long it took to get the variations of CSS, DOM, and HTML4 standardized and implemented. They've been available for over a decade, but we're only reaping the benefits of these standards now.

That being said, the W3C does expect parts of the specification to be implemented sooner rather than later:

The details are still being worked out, but the plan is to indicate the maturity level on a per-section basis. Sections like the Link Types, which is relatively simple, isn't going to take long to become interoperably implemented. In fact, Mozilla is already implementing the new autodiscovery features for Firefox 3.0, and it shouldn't take long for places like Technorati, Bloglines, etc. to implement follow.

In result, it really doesn't matter when the HTML 5 standard is fully realized. We will be (and already are) reaping the benefits of it long before it's 100% complete.

Of course, they did get it submitted to the W3C ahead of schedule. And the W3C is taking it more seriously than originally expected. So don't be surprised if they're ahead of schedule on completion. ;-)

Re:Hmmm

[vaderhelmet]

This is very possible. Has been for quite a while. http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/classchange.html [quirksmode.org]

Re:Hmmm

[AKAImBatman]

I like the getElementsByCSSSelector() idea.

I think it's kind of self-defeating. On one hand he advocates custom-tag creation, then he advocates elements by tag selector. Encouraging one or the other is fine. But offering both will only confuse developers and undermine both options. Going with custom tags is probably the better solution as it encapsulates the semantic information a programmer would be looking for while still being unique enough to style with CSS.

That being said, if you really want that feature try this script:
http://simonwillison.net/2003/Mar/25/getElementsBySelector/ [simonwillison.net]

I want javascript access to the css parse tree just like with the DOM.

I think you want to read the DOM Level 2 Style Specification [w3.org]. The short answer is: Yes, the CSS is accessible through DOM APIs. The long answer involves lots of shouting and complaining about Microsoft and their stranglehold on the market. :-)

Re:HTML sucks...

[AKAImBatman]

BTW, why not PSML, a markup language based on PostScript?

It's called NeWS [wikipedia.org], and it's quite old. As you can see, What's Old is NeWS Again [intelligentblogger.com]. :-P

Re:Hmmm

[Wdomburg]

Erm, you do realize DOCTYPE was in original HTML draft published in 1993, before the W3C existed and almost five years before XML existed, right?

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That?

[E++99]

GHWB (not to be confused with GHB, which can be metabolized from certain toy paints) was made fun of a lot for one of his campaign mottos, which was "It's time for a kindler, gentler America." Dana Carvey made gravy from spoofing GHWB on SNL, and the "kindler, gentler America" bit was an instant classic.

IIRC, it was from a state-of-the-union address rather than a campaign motto. I remember thinking, "Kinder gentler? I want a more kick-ass America!" Thank God he had a son!

Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

So I went to read this "proposal", but basically stopped after the first point:

No more doctypes.

Everyone would love to do this. Unfortunately, not including a doctype throws current day browsers into quirks mode. That is not a workable solution. No one is going to ignore current day browsers, and current day browsers are likely to linger with a significant market share for at least a decade. This is why the WHATWG found the shortest doctype which still triggers standards mode - <!DOCTYPE HTML> (incidentally the only doctype I've ever been able to remember). All of this has been explained endlessly, so why does Crockford blithely ignore it? The people in the WHATWG and W3C know what they're doing - but they have to deal with the real web; no matter how much easier their task would be if they could ignore it like all their criticasters do.

XHTML 2

[booch]

In some ways, his proposal sounds a bit like XHTML 2 [wikipedia.org]. Not so much the details, but the idea of breaking from the existing spec, and trying to simplify things. And to put it bluntly, XHMTL 2 has not exactly been taking the world by storm. It seems that nobody really likes it, so it has not gotten much support. It's unlikely that it will ever make it out of draft status.

Re:Not Impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "per se" not "per say". It's Latin for "intrinsically", not just another way of saying "as such" which is the way people seem to commonly abuse it.

Re:Not Impressed

[alan_dershowitz]

I am so informed it would blow your mind. Setting font properties at the body doesn't cascade for all elements that result in a font onscreen. Try it. With regards to the default stylesheet, that is different than "unstyled." Without using CSS at all you still have margins, there is still a default font size for different elements, there is spacing, things like links have colors, underlines, and hover/selected attributes specified. I am saying there should be a way to tell the browser to disable ALL styling so that there are no margins, no spacing, no default font family, size or weight. ALL of this would have to be specified in your stylesheet at that point.

Basically, there is a reason that CSS RESET stylsheets have been created, and it is to get the browser back to a simulated "unstyled" state. It is stupid and should be unnecessary. It's a workaround for a deficiency in current browser tech. I say fix the tech. Part of the problem with CSS is that your selectors have to assume that each browser has a different baseline, when the baseline should itself be a stylesheet that can be turned off (I am not talking about user-specified stylesheets, which should still override. Not the same as a browser baseline.)

Re:Not Impressed

[AKAImBatman]

CSS 101 is learning to float left and right. If you're trying to create three physical columns, you're doing it wrong. You need to create three divs, float two of them to either side, and your center will resize correctly. Easy, peasy. :-)

You can even have the text wrap around the ends of the floated columns or clear the area beneath them completely.

Re:Kinder? Gentler?

[man_of_mr_e]

I think you need to brush up on your web history a bit.

The problem with IE is not that it "intentionally" doesn't follow standards, it's that it "intentionally" was left to rot for 5 years after the only other competition whithered and died.

When IE6 was released, it had the best standards compliance, best CSS implementaiton, best HTML and XHTML implementations of any major browser. That's not to say it didn't have lots of bugs (it did) but at the time, there simply wasn't anything else even close. Then, nothing happened, and products like Mozilla and Opera really walked all over IE in terms of conformance (but they took many years to get there, years that Microsoft spent ignoring browsers).

IE7 came a long way in a short time in improving things. It still needs lots of work to be sure, but this BS that Microsoft is "intentionally" not following web standards is just poppycock.