HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
w3c
html
HTML2012–2026
w3c / html · Archived

html

Deliverables of the HTML Working Group until October 2018

Web Development
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
11Distinct people
12Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Deliverables of the HTML Working Group until October 2018

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 1:03:20 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year12 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2012-09-05 05:27:34 UTC to 2026-01-24 17:34:09 UTC.

0123452012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20122013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 4 submissions, 1 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC541
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

1 sources
tannhaeuser·May 28, 2019
> it used to be based on SGML (though now it's not, for various reasons) HTML doesn't cease to be based on SGML by mere declaration, or even by brittling it to the point it can't be parsed by any known formal standard. That's more a political stance, as in American isn't English or some such. WHATWG's formulation of HTML has deliberately distanced itself from SGML out of ignorance and a desire to not being accountable or formally verifiable (aka move fast and break things) against established, rich theoretical foundations of markup languages. And it shows: already in a paper I published two years ago [1], I show flaws in HTML as described by WHATWG, some of which have since been fixed ([3]). Not only is the concept of "transparent markup" flawed and underspecified, it also has since be used in the definition of the content model for the d
Read the rest
l element, and as an unintended consequence also the div element (cf [2]), flaws that could be easily avoided by just using SGML for the grammar WHATWG is attempting to describe when SGML has been around for ages. It's also not entirely true that WHATWG HTML can parse all legacy docs. For example, the keygen element has been removed, and while not a terrible loss as such ;), since keygen is a void element (an element with declared content EMPTY in SGML parlance), its presence in a legacy document (eg without an end-element tag) will make HTML5 parsers fail hard ([4]). It's also completely unclear which version of HTML is being validated by eg. W3C's nu or another validator. Heck, even the spec text for WHATWG HTML itself reads > This file is NOT HTML, it's a proprietary language that is then post-processed into HTML when a large portion of the spec text portrays HTML in the role of an authoring language. So tell me why, as an author, I should follow WHATWG's vision for HTML? As you say yourself, WHATWG hasn't advanced HTML the markup language at all, and has rather prevented the evolution of declarative UI features, to the effect of making JavaScript essential for all but the most basic documents. [1]: http://archive.xmlprague.cz/2017/files/xmlprague-2017-procee... [2]: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/1116 [3]: https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/6e305c457e42276bf275b8... [4]: Edit: this affects differences introduced in HTML 5.2 vs HTML 5.1, not some distant archaic HTML 4 version
In W3C and the WHATWG sign agreement to collaborate on single version of HTML, DOM

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.