Episode 97 of The SitePoint Podcast is now available! This week Kevin Yank (@sentience) chats with Louis Simoneau (@rssaddict), SitePoint’s head Technical Editor, about why he thinks Google’s move to drop H.264 is a good thing, whether the W3C’s new logo for HTML5 is any good at all, and why the WHAT-WG has decided to drop the ‘5’ from HTML5.
SitePoint Podcast的 第97集现已发布！ 本周凯文·扬克( @sentience )与路易西莫努(聊天@rssaddict )，SitePoint的头技术编辑，为什么他认为谷歌此举下降H.264是一件好事，W3CHTML5的新标志是什么好的可言，以及WHAT-WG为什么决定从HTML5中删除“ 5”。
Play this episode directly in your browser! Just click the orange “play” button below:
直接在浏览器中播放此剧集！ 只需点击下面的橙色“播放”按钮：
You can also download this episode as a standalone MP3 file. Here’s the link:
您也可以将本集下载为独立的MP3文件。 这是链接：
SitePoint Podcast #97: The Occasional Dick Move with Louis Simoneau (MP3, 54:46, 50.2MB)
SitePoint播客＃97：与Louis Simoneau偶尔进行的迪克动作 (MP3，54:46，50.2MB)
Kevin: January 28th, 2011. SitePoint’s head Technical Editor talks WebM, HTML5 and the future of web standards. I’m Kevin Yank and this is the SitePoint Podcast #97: The Occasional Dick Move with Louis Simoneau.
凯文： 2011年1月28日。SitePoint的首席技术编辑谈论WebM，HTML5和Web标准的未来。 我是凯文·扬克(Kevin Yank)，这是SitePoint播客＃97：与路易斯·西蒙娜(Louis Simoneau)的偶尔迪克动作。
And joining us on the SitePoint Podcast today I have the distinct pleasure of having my interviewee in the same room with me. We’re joined by Louis Simoneau. Hi Louis.
今天就加入SitePoint播客，我很荣幸能将受访者与我同在一个房间。 Louis Simoneau加入了我们。 嗨，路易斯。
Louis: Hello.
路易斯：你好。
Kevin: Louis is the Lead Technical Editor here at SitePoint. What does that mean, what do you do here?
凯文：路易斯是SitePoint的首席技术编辑。 那是什么意思，你在这里做什么？
Louis: So, all of our books and online publications go through sort of a two-stage editing process, first up there’s a technical edit in which I kind of take the manuscripts from the author and make sure the code works, is up to snuff, is the best practice, make sure all the explanations of the code are clear and comprehensible to a beginner in that field, and then it would go through to a language editor who does the grammar and spelling and punctuation and style. So, yeah, I take care of all of the technical aspects of all of our books and online publications.
路易斯：因此，我们所有的书籍和在线出版物都经历了两个阶段的编辑过程，首先是技术性编辑，在这种技术编辑中，我从作者那里摘抄了手稿，并确保代码可以正常工作。 ，这是最佳实践，请确保该领域的初学者对代码的所有解释都是清楚且易于理解的，然后再由负责语法，拼写，标点和样式的语言编辑人员进行操作。 所以，是的，我负责我们所有书籍和在线出版物的所有技术方面。
Kevin: Head of technical pedantry I guess you’d say (laughter). Yeah, I used to do a lot of that stuff back when SitePoint was a smaller operation and, yeah, you’re kind of the last line of defense for technical quality on everything we publish here.
凯文：技术学系主任，我想你会说(笑)。 是的，当SitePoint规模较小时，我曾经做过很多事情，是的，对于我们在此处发布的所有内容，您都是技术质量的最后一道防线。
Louis: That’s a fair assessment, yeah.
路易斯：这是一个公平的评估，是的。
Kevin: Okay. Well, the reason I wanted to get you on is because when you’re not editing books you’re also occasionally writing for the SitePoint Blogs, and one of the topics we covered in last week’s podcast was Google’s decision to remove H.264 video from Google Chrome. And I know you’re a bit of a Google fan.
凯文：好的。 好吧，我想吸引您的原因是因为当您不编辑书籍时，您偶尔还会为SitePoint博客写文章，而我们上周播客中讨论的主题之一就是Google决定删除H.264视频从谷歌浏览器。 而且我知道您有点像Google粉丝。
Louis: Yes indeed. I wouldn’t say I’m a Google fan, I don’t think that’s an accurate representation; in this case I’m actually— My opinions on this are sort of formed of Mozilla fan, I think.
路易斯：是的。 我不会说我是Google的粉丝，我不认为这是准确的表述； 在这种情况下，我实际上是–我认为对此的看法是由Mozilla粉丝形成的。
Kevin: A Mozilla fan.
凯文： Mozilla的粉丝。
Louis: I think this sort of plays to Mozilla’s advantage, I’m a fan of Firefox, been using it forever, I haven’t jumped on the Chrome bandwagon.
路易斯：我认为这种发挥对Mozilla有利的方法，我是Firefox的粉丝，一直使用它，我还没有加入Chrome潮流。
Kevin: Okay, so you’re not on the Chrome. You are on the Android though I notice.
凯文：好的，所以您不在Chrome上。 尽管我注意到您使用的是Android。
Louis: I am on the Android phone, yeah.
路易斯：是的，我在Android手机上。
Kevin: Yes. We don’t actually have anyone using an Android phone on our regular panel, so this is one of the reasons I wanted to get you on, and the other is this post that you wrote; I think the day the news broke there must’ve been dozens if not hundreds of posts across the Web sort of crying foul and saying “Google’s gone off the deep end, they’re crazy, they’re removing support for the most popular video format from their browser, what’s going on?” And yours was one of the few positive ones I saw come out of a I guess I would say a browser vendor neutral publication, so you know we saw the predictable posts from Opera and Firefox developers supporting the move, and Chrome developers as well, but as an independent outlet your post sort of took the stance that this was a good move. So let’s start there, why were you happy to see this happen?
凯文：是的。 实际上，我们的常规面板上实际上没有人在使用Android手机，因此，这是我希望吸引您的原因之一，而另一个原因是您撰写的这篇文章； 我认为，新闻发布的那一天，网上肯定有数十篇甚至数百篇帖子在哭泣，说：“谷歌已经走入了深渊，他们疯了，他们正在删除对最受欢迎视频的支持从他们的浏览器格式化，这是怎么回事？” 而您的文章是我看到的少数积极文章之一，我想我会说这是一个与浏览器供应商无关的出版物，所以您知道我们看到Opera和Firefox开发人员的可预测帖子支持此举，但Chrome开发人员也是如此。作为一个独立的渠道，您的职位采取了这样的立场： 因此，让我们从这里开始，您为什么高兴看到这种情况发生？
Louis: So, I’ve been sort of covering this issue for a little while on the SitePoint Blog, so there’s been a couple of posts in the past, once just sort of introducing the idea of the different codecs way back when it wasn’t that contentious an issue, and then I wrote another one when Google announced an open sourced WebM so including the VP8 codec. So, my view on this is that you’re not gonna have a standard unless you have a standard that everyone can implement. Right now Mozilla and Opera there can be discussion about that, but they don’t seem to think that they’re able of implementing H.264 in the browsers.
路易斯：所以，我在SitePoint博客上已经讨论了一段时间，所以过去有几篇文章，一次只是介绍了不同编解码器的思想，而当时还没有。这个问题引起了争议，然后我在Google宣布开源WebM(包括VP8编解码器)时写了另一个。 因此，我对此的看法是，除非拥有每个人都可以实施的标准，否则您将没有标准。 目前，Mozilla和Opera可以对此进行讨论，但是他们似乎并不认为自己能够在浏览器中实现H.264。
Kevin: When you say able you mean they can’t— it’s incompatible with their licensing? Is that what you’re saying, or it just costs too much money?
凯文：当您说能够代表您不能这样做时，这与他们的许可不符吗？ 这是您的意思，还是只是花了太多钱？
Louis: I think it’s probably a combination of the two things. Mozilla has come out very strongly and said that they’re not gonna do it and it’s not gonna happen; I’m not too up on what Opera is doing. And there’s definite issues, for example, Mozilla is the default browser in a lot of Linux distributions and that would be incompatible with the licensing if they included the decoder in the browser. I’m not sure whether that would necessarily be the case for just a Mozilla distribution that you download onto your Windows machine or whatnot. Yeah, so I remain of the opinion that we need a video codec that is free for any browser maker to just throw in there and distribute.
路易斯：我认为这可能是两者的结合。 Mozilla非常有力地表示，他们不会这样做，而且不会发生。 我不太了解Opera在做什么。 还有一定的问题，例如，Mozilla是许多Linux发行版中的默认浏览器，如果在浏览器中包含解码器，则与许可不兼容。 我不确定对于下载到Windows计算机上的Mozilla发行版是否一定会如此。 是的，因此，我仍然认为我们需要一个免费的视频编解码器，任何浏览器制造商都可以免费在其中分发它。
Kevin: So I guess why is that? Like if we’re talking about licensing for inclusion and open source operating system distributions there’s a very clear argument there. If we take that as a given, that that’s a good thing that we want operating systems that licensed under open source to be able to include this out of the box, let’s say that is something we definitely want to achieve, then you definitely need a video codec that at the very least has a legal piece of decoder software that is open source code.
凯文：那我猜为什么呢？ 就像我们在谈论包含性许可和开放源代码操作系统发行版一样，那里有一个非常明确的论点。 如果我们以此为前提，那么这是一件好事，我们希望在开放源代码下获得许可的操作系统能够立即将其包括在内，这是我们绝对希望实现的目标，那么您肯定需要一个至少具有合法的解码器软件(开放源代码)的视频编解码器。
Louis: Yep.
路易斯：是的 。
Kevin: Yeah, that is compatible with the open source licenses, basically you don’t have to pay anyone to use that code, you can pull it out, drop it into your browser in this case, and as long as you give proper credit you’re in the ballpark, and of course there’s a whole lot of subtleties depending on which license we’re talking about, but that’s really what it comes down to is that H.264 as a format if you want to make your browser play it back there’s no open source code out there to do that, certainly none that is legally distributed; if you want to play that back you need to go to the licensing body and sign up for a license, whether that’s a free license or not depends on how you’re gonna use it and these subtleties, these licensing restrictions all interfere with your ability to include it in an operating system like Ubuntu. So you’ve used desktop Linux for a while?
凯文：是的，它与开源许可证兼容，基本上，您不必支付任何人使用的代码，在这种情况下，您可以将其拔出并拖放到浏览器中，并且只要您给予适当的信誉即可您在球场上，当然还有很多细微之处，这取决于我们所讨论的许可证，但是实际上，如果您想让浏览器播放，则实际上是将H.264作为一种格式以前，没有开源代码可以做到这一点，当然也没有合法发行的代码。 如果您想播放该影片，则需要去许可机构并注册一个许可，无论是否是免费许可，取决于您将如何使用它以及这些细微之处，这些许可限制都会干扰您的能力将其包含在像Ubuntu这样的操作系统中。 所以您使用台式机Linux已有一段时间了？
Louis: Yeah, I’ve been on Ubuntu probably for three or four years now, it’s my main desktop OS. I still use Mac at work but my preference is for Ubuntu and that’s what I use personally.
路易斯：是的，我使用Ubuntu大概已有三四年了，这是我的主要台式机操作系统。 我仍在使用Mac，但我更喜欢Ubuntu，这就是我个人使用的。
Kevin: So open source operating systems aside, what is the benefit? We’ve talked on the podcast about different definitions of open, and we’ve just covered the one where you can get free software to play it back and no matter who you are or what you want to do with it. There’s also the definitions of open that include all of the W3C technologies, HTML, CSS, these are all developed in a standards body with a bunch of interested parties signing on to collaborate and no one has exclusive control over this spec, anyone can introduce a change that then must be voted on, when it gets to the final step of the spec the public can weigh in and raise objections; it’s a slow process, it’s a deliberate process, some might say it’s what has made the Web what it is. Does it concern you at all that a format like WebM doesn’t come with those benefits of standardization, open standardization?
凯文：那么除了开源操作系统，还有什么好处？ 我们在播客上讨论了关于open的不同定义，并且我们只介绍了一个可以让您免费播放它的播放器，无论您是谁或想要做什么。 还有开放的定义，包括所有W3C技术，HTML，CSS，这些都是在标准机构中开发的，有很多感兴趣的团体签署了合作协议，没有人对此规范拥有独占控制权，任何人都可以介绍到规范的最后一步时，公众必须权衡并提出异议，然后必须对其进行表决的更改； 这是一个缓慢的过程，这是一个深思熟虑的过程，有人可能会说这是使Web成为现实的原因。 您是否完全担心像WebM这样的格式没有标准化，开放式标准化带来的好处？
Louis: To be perfectly honest no it doesn’t. I think that we have a bunch of technologies on the Web that maybe sort of follow that process or don’t. In this case, in my mind the most important thing is to have something that’s royalty free and that can be easily incorporated into any browser or any kind of — not only for browsers but for websites as well from the encoding side if I’m doing sort of a YouTube-like venture and I want to be able to encode video if it’s for commercial purpose; right at the moment that does involve paying a license fee to MPEG-LA if I want to use H.264. So previously the debate had been between okay we’ve got Ogg Theora which was the pre-existing open source video codec—
路易斯：老实说，不是。 我认为我们在网络上有很多技术可能遵循或不遵循该过程。 在这种情况下，在我看来，最重要的是拥有免版税的东西，并且可以轻松地集成到任何浏览器或任何类型的浏览器中-不仅适用于浏览器，而且还适用于编码方面的网站(如果我这样做的话)有点像YouTube一样的业务，如果要用于商业目的，我希望能够对视频进行编码； 如果我想使用H.264，目前确实需要向MPEG-LA支付许可费。 因此，以前的辩论一直是在好吧之间，我们已经有了Ogg Theora，它是预先存在的开源视频编解码器，
Kevin: Yeah, that’s the one that Firefox and Opera decided to bet on initially before WebM was bought by Google and opened up.
凯文：是的，那是Firefox和Opera在Google收购WebM并开放之前最初决定下注的那个。
Louis: Yep.
路易斯：是的 。
Kevin: And people say it sucks.
凯文：人们说很烂。
Louis: People said it sucked basically that was the thing.
路易斯：人们说这基本上就是事实。
Kevin: We tried experiments of encoding video for our courses in Ogg Theora and I can confirm: it sucks. (laugh)
凯文：我们在Ogg Theora的课程中尝试了对视频进行编码的实验，我可以证实：这很糟糕。 (笑)
Louis: Right, just did not have the throughput required to encode. You just wind up for the same quality with a much larger file than you would with something like H.264. WebM on the other hand using the VP8 codec is comparable, you know, there’s people nitpicking about the tiny details, but it is comparable in performance with H.264, and it’s something that everyone has really kind of embraced fairly quickly, so Chrome supported it initially of course, but Firefox and Opera within a few days of it being open sourced had added support to their nightlies or to their betas. Yeah, and I think it’s interesting when you read the blog posts that were decrying Google’s move to drop H.264 support from Chrome a lot of people seemed to be saying that this was somehow changing the landscape or that it was adding to fragmentation, and I just — I couldn’t see how that was the case given that a sizable portion of the existing browser market already had exactly the same level of support as what Chrome was moving to.
路易斯：对，只是没有编码所需的吞吐量。 与使用H.264之类的文件相比，使用更大的文件来获得相同的质量。 另一方面，使用VP8编解码器的WebM具有可比性，您知道，有些人对这些细微的细节不屑一顾，但是它的性能与H.264相当，并且每个人都很快接受了它，因此Chrome支持最初当然是这样，但是Firefox和Opera在开源后的几天内为他们的夜间活动或Beta增加了支持。 是的，当您读到博客文章谴责Google放弃从Chrome支持H.264的举动时，我认为这很有趣，很多人似乎在说这正在改变现状，或者正在加剧碎片化，我只是-考虑到现有浏览器市场中相当大的一部分已经获得了与Chrome所提供的完全相同的支持水平，所以我看不到这种情况。
Kevin: Right. Google’s move may have been in the opposite direction to the way others are moving, but it didn’t make them any worse, they’re by far not the worst browser as far as video playback is concerned; they are no worse than Firefox, no worse than Opera and certainly no worse than Internet Explorer as a result of this move. And the move was not made as a blind “we’re removing this”; they are removing it to replace it with something that they would like to see other browser vendors replace it with.
凯文：对。 Google的举动可能与其他人的举动相反，但并没有使它们变得更糟，就视频播放而言，它们并不是最差的浏览器。 由于此举，它们不比Firefox更差，也不比Opera更差，当然也不比Internet Explorer更差。 而且此举并非盲目的“我们正在消除这一点”。 他们正在删除它，以替换为其他浏览器供应商所替换的东西。
Louis: Yeah, and as I’ve said those other browsers are already at that level of support, so you’ve got this segment of the browser market and since Mozilla and Opera have both stated “we’re not gonna move in any direction from here” either because it’s incompatible with our license or because we really can’t afford as an organization to pay the licensing fees, then what was gonna happen was either we move en masse to something that is royalty free or we start using H.264 for everything and then Opera and Firefox get Flash, which, you know, personally I don’t see as an adequate long term solution.
路易斯：是的，正如我已经说过的那样，其他浏览器已经处于这种支持水平，因此您已经拥有了浏览器市场的这一细分市场，并且由于Mozilla和Opera都表示“我们不会朝任何方向发展”从这里开始”，或者是因为它与我们的许可证不兼容，或者因为我们真的负担不起作为组织的费用来支付许可证费用，那么将要发生的事情是我们要么集体使用免版税的产品，要么开始使用H。 264可以处理所有内容，然后Opera和Firefox可以使用Flash，就我个人而言，我认为这不是一个足够的长期解决方案。
Kevin: Well, the long term vision I suppose was that Opera and Firefox would have their hands forced or they would be forced somehow to implement H.264 video even if it was as an add-on that you would have to download after the fact, add that “native” support for that format; H.264 would never be a ratified format by standards bodies like the W3C because of its licensing necessarily, but if it became a de facto standard they’d have to find a way to support it, I guess that was the hope.
凯文：嗯，我想的长远目标是Opera和Firefox会被迫动手，或者被迫以某种方式实施H.264视频，即使这是您在事发后必须下载的附件。 ，添加对该格式的“本地”支持； H.264永远不会成为像W3C这样的标准机构批准的格式，因为它必须获得许可，但是如果它成为事实上的标准，他们必须找到一种方法来支持它，我想那是希望。
Louis: Hope, yeah, or the fear, depending on which side of the aisle you stand on. Yeah, I realize that it’s sort of an ideal position to say we’re gonna try and hope that we’ll have a fully royalty free solution.
路易斯：希望，是，还是恐惧，这取决于您站在过道的哪一边。 是的，我意识到说我们要尝试并希望我们将拥有一个完全免费的解决方案是一个理想的位置。
Kevin: Could this have ever happened without a big company like Google saying alright take our money? Someone has to pay for the Web to have an open format, it’s gonna be us, let’s write a big check and we can all move on. If Google hadn’t done that do you think someone else would have eventually or would we be stuck?
凯文：如果没有像Google这样的大公司说可以拿走我们的钱，这会发生吗？ 有人必须为拥有开放格式的Web付费，这将是我们，让我们写一张大笔支票，我们就可以继续前进。 如果Google没有这样做，您认为其他人最终还是会陷入困境？
Louis: Well, I think in this particular case because of the quagmire that software patents entail I could’ve, you know, things like Ogg Theora where a bunch of open source hackers will come up with a format, one it’s unlikely to be that good if they’re trying to steer clear of patents, and two they might not do that good a job of steering clear of patents, whereas Google when they do something like this they’ve got a team of lawyers that they can go over the code with a fine-toothed comb and say “We are sure insofar as we can be—”
路易斯：好吧，我认为在这种特殊情况下，由于软件专利带来的泥潭，我知道，像Ogg Theora这样的事情，一堆开源黑客会想出一种格式，这种可能性不大可能是如果他们试图避开专利，那就好，而另外两个，他们避开专利可能做得不好，而Google在做这样的事情时，就会有一支律师团队，他们可以解决用细齿的梳子编码，然后说：“我们会尽力确保—”
Kevin: Fingers crossed.
凯文：手指交叉。
Louis: Fingers crossed. ”—that if Mpeg LA decides to come after us on a patent issue with this that we have a case at least.” So because software patents are such a tangled issue and so difficult to protect yourself against I think it took something like Google to come up with something that would eventually potentially be a solution for the Web.
路易斯：手指交叉。 ”-如果Mpeg LA决定就此专利问题追随我们，那么至少我们有个案例。” 因此，由于软件专利是一个纠结的问题，很难保护自己免受侵害，我认为像Google这样的公司最终提出了可能成为Web解决方案的方案。
Kevin: So much of this argument is hypotheticals and worst-case scenarios. I think back to the issues surrounding the GIF image format; I remember someday in must’ve been 1997 someone told me “Hey this company’s claiming ownership over compression technology in GIF and they’re gonna try and get everyone to pay money for ever GIF file they’ve used on the Web”, and there was mass hysteria for a day or two and people were saying, “Oh, we’re gonna have to replace all my GIFs with JPEGs, they’re gonna take up so much more space and be so cruddy looking because of the compression.” And there was, I’m trying to remember if anyone ever actually removed support from GIF, I don’t think they did; there was talk of them going after the browser vendors who would have been Microsoft and Netscape at the time, and I’m not even sure if that ever really made it to court. But the response from the developer community seemed to me to be particularly swift and efficient, whereas the moment it was identified that this format was definitely tainted and people were trying to extract money from it the developer community up and moved to PNG.
凯文(Kevin)：这个论据的大部分是假设和最坏的情况。 我回想起有关GIF图像格式的问题； 我记得一定是在1997年的某天，有人告诉我“嘿，这家公司声称拥有GIF压缩技术的所有权，他们将努力让所有人为他们在网络上使用过的GIF文件付钱”，一两天就歇斯底里了，人们说：“哦，我们将不得不用JPEG替换我所有的GIF，它们将占用更多的空间，并且由于压缩而显得粗糙。” 而且，我想记住的是，是否有人真的从GIF中删除了支持，但我认为他们没有这样做。 曾经有传言说他们要追随当时是微软和Netscape的浏览器供应商，我甚至不确定这是否真的引起了人们的关注。 但是在我看来，开发人员社区的响应似乎特别快捷有效，而当人们发现这种格式肯定受到污染时，人们正试图从开发人员社区中牟利，然后转移到PNG。
Louis: Yeah.
路易斯：是的。
Kevin: And the browsers lagged behind by a couple of years until we saw a reasonable PNG support but it came pretty quickly, certainly quickly enough that no one ended up having to pay anyone any money for GIF licensing, and now here we are after that and no one even remembers that there are problems with GIF, I think at this point, I’m trying to remember the dates involved, but if it hasn’t already expired we’re very close to the licenses on GIF technology expiring and it’s gonna very quickly be a non-issue if it isn’t already. It seems to me the same would happen with a video format, be it H.264 if the standards body—or not the standard’s body—if the licensing company that owns it decided to suddenly go back on their word and start charging people for it, or if WebM suddenly someone claimed ownership over that technology in a way that hadn’t been anticipated, if either of those things happened it wouldn’t be the end of the Web, we would just move to something else, the developer community would rally I think and build something new or fall back to something safe.
凯文：浏览器落后了几年，直到我们看到了合理的PNG支持，但是它来得很快，当然足够快，以至于没有人最终不必为GIF许可支付任何钱，现在我们在此之后甚至没有人记得GIF存在问题，我想在这一点上，我想记住所涉及的日期，但是如果它还没有过期，我们将非常接近GIF技术的许可到期，并且如果还没有的话，很快就会成为非问题。 在我看来，如果是标准机构(或不是标准机构)，如果拥有它的许可公司决定突然放弃并开始向人们收费，那么视频格式也会发生H.264 ，或者如果WebM突然有人以某种出乎意料的方式要求拥有该技术，那么，如果其中任何一件事情发生了，那也就不是Web的尽头了，我们将转移到其他领域，开发者社区将集会，我认为并建立新的东西或回落到安全的东西。
Louis: Yep, I think that’s fair, but I think that this step of sort of entrenching WebM, which as far as we know is a royalty free video codec, is a sort of a step in terms of maybe protecting browsers from something like that happening because you’ve got this thing that’s out there and people will start hacking it, decoders and encoders coming up with different implementations in browsers, so there will be broad support for an alternative standard pre-existing if ever something goes south with H.264.
路易斯：是的 ，我认为这很公平，但是我认为这一巩固WebM的步骤(就我们所知，这是免版税的视频编解码器)，在保护浏览器免受此类攻击方面迈出了一步发生这种情况的原因是，您已经有了这个东西，人们将开始对其进行破解，解码器和编码器会在浏览器中提供不同的实现，因此，如果H泛滥成灾，则将广泛支持预先存在的替代标准。 264。
Kevin: It’s got this huge public profile, you know, we can’t get five years into every web site migrating to this video format and then some company coming along and go, ahem, excuse me, excuse me you all owe me money; it’s gonna seem at best disingenuous if that were to happen, they’d be like “Where were you five years ago when we were making this a standard?” Alright, so what are your thoughts on hardware decoding?
凯文：它拥有如此庞大的公众形象，你知道，我们不能在每个网站上都花五年时间迁移到这种视频格式，然后一家公司走来走去，啊，对不起，对不起，对不起，你们都欠我钱。 如果要做到这一点，似乎最好是不屑一顾，他们会说：“五年前，当我们将其作为标准时，您在哪里？” 好了，那么您对硬件解码有何想法？
Louis: Um, yeah, alright. (laughter)
路易斯：嗯，是的。 (笑声)
Kevin: Okay, look, we both have Smart Phones in our pockets; mine happens to have an Apple logo on it and therefore can only play H.264 video in hardware.
凯文：好吧，看，我们两个人的口袋里都有智能手机。 我的碰巧上面有Apple徽标，因此只能在硬件上播放H.264视频。
Louis: I believe I’m fairly certain mine can only play H.264 video in hardware, I don’t think WebM support was added until Android 2.3 and I haven’t upgraded yet.
路易斯：我相信我可以肯定我只能在硬件上播放H.264视频，我认为直到Android 2.3才添加WebM支持，并且我还没有升级。
Kevin: And even then it would be in software, so yeah, it would chew your battery if you were watching YouTube for very long. So I suppose what is the picture here of how we move forward when we have these i-devices that will be around for years with H.264; one assumes that even in a best case scenario for Google it’s gonna be a few years before you can convince Apple to build a WebM hardware decoder into one of their devices.
凯文(Kevin)：即使那样也可以用软件来完成，是的，如果您长时间观看YouTube，它会消耗大量电量。 因此，我想这是一张什么样的图，说明当我们拥有将在H.264上使用多年的这些i设备时，我们将如何前进？ 人们认为，即使在最适合Google的情况下，要说服Apple在其设备之一中构建WebM硬件解码器也要花费几年的时间。
Louis: Absolutely, I think that’s probably true. As I’ve said I think that for Google and for developers like myself I think that we’re kind of playing all or nothing here, this is what we need and I think it’s worth fighting for, at least giving it a go, and Google’s given it a go, and I think with that combined force of having Google on board and Mozilla and Opera and even to a lesser extent Microsoft because they’ve added a plugin to IE9 already that adds WebM video support, it’s a fairly simple plugin installation, I think it’s sort of matter of time when you’ve got to wait and see, but I don’t think the playing field has changed that much from where we were a few weeks ago before this was announced. I think we’re still in the same place where, yes, if you want HTML5 video you kind of have to dual encode, and that’ll probably continue to be the case for a while now.
路易斯：绝对，我认为可能是对的。 就像我说过的那样，对于Google和像我这样的开发人员，我认为我们在这里发挥了全部或全部的作用，这是我们需要的，我认为值得为之奋斗，至少可以放手一搏，并且谷歌已经放手了，我认为有了谷歌，Mozilla和Opera甚至还有较小程度上的微软的联合力量，因为他们已经在IE9中添加了插件，并增加了WebM视频支持，这是一个相当简单的插件安装，我认为这是您需要拭目以待的时间问题，但我认为比赛场地与几周前宣布这一点之前相比，变化不大。 我认为我们仍然在同一个地方，是的，如果您想要HTML5视频，则必须进行双重编码，并且这种情况现在可能还会持续一段时间。
Kevin: What’s gonna prompt a developer, a lazy developer, to encode their first WebM video? Because I know I didn’t— I think most people encoded MPEG2 just because it was what they knew and it was convenient until these i-devices came along and forced them to move to H.264; either they stuck to what they knew or they stuck to what was automatically selected in their video production tool of choice. I’m just trying to get a picture for how quickly this is gonna change; are we gonna be sitting here in five, ten years’ time still saying “well you know everyone uses H.264 but everyone knows that WebM is where we should be moving”?
凯文：是什么促使开发人员(一个懒惰的开发人员)编码他们的第一个WebM视频？ 因为我知道我没有，所以我认为大多数人只是因为他们知道MPEG2而对其进行编码，所以在这些i设备问世并迫使他们迁移到H.264之前很方便。 他们要么坚持自己的知识，要么坚持自己选择的视频制作工具中自动选择的内容。 我只是想了解一下这种变化将有多快。 我们会在五到十年的时间里坐在这里吗？还是说“好吧，您知道每个人都在使用H.264，但是每个人都知道WebM是我们应该移动的地方”？
Louis: Who knows? I think it’s one of those kind of sit back and kind of wait and see things and we’ll see what happens, I mean obviously Google and YouTube have begun encoding in WebM so you’re seeing a pretty big amount of content out there already.
路易斯：谁知道？ 我认为这是一种休息和观望的事情，我们会看到会发生什么。我的意思是，显然Google和YouTube已开始使用WebM进行编码，因此您已经看到了很多内容。
Kevin: Yeah, YouTube could be Google’s ace in the hole here because if they convert all of YouTube to WebM that’s a great first step, that’s a large chunk of web video that becomes available in WebM, maybe then they could afford to put out a handset, a tablet, a mobile device, something of that sort, that plays WebM natively and uses Flash or some software decoding for H.264. Putting YouTube over the line, maybe that’s enough so that they could—
凯文：是的，YouTube可能会成为Google的王牌，因为如果他们将YouTube全部转换为WebM，这是伟大的第一步，那就是WebM中可以使用的大量网络视频，也许他们可以负担得起手机，平板电脑，移动设备或类似的东西，可以原生播放WebM并使用Flash或H.264的某些软件解码。 将YouTube放在首位，也许就足够了，他们可以-
Louis: I think it’s definitely possible, I mean you’ve already seen— So, the latest version of Android as I’ve said, 2.3, does include support in the browser for WebM video. There are a number of hardware manufacturers, I saw there’s one video on the WebM blog of a Chinese manufacturer demoing a tablet, an Android tablet that has hardware decoding built into the chip set.
路易斯：我认为这绝对有可能，我是说您已经看过-因此，正如我所说，最新版本的Android 2.3确实包含了对WebM视频的浏览器支持。 有许多硬件制造商，我在WebM博客上看到一个视频，其中有一个中国制造商演示了平板电脑，这是一款Android平板电脑，其芯片组内置了硬件解码功能。
Kevin: For WebM?
凯文：对于WebM？
Louis: For WebM.
路易斯：对于WebM。
Kevin: Wow.
凯文：哇。
Louis: And that was demoed. So I think that for a lot of hardware manufacturers people seem to think that it’s not going to be that difficult and with the lifecycle of tech products for people to add this support to hardware, you might see a lot more hardware devices with this support sooner than you might expect.
路易斯：那被降级了。 因此，我认为对于许多硬件制造商来说，人们似乎并不觉得那么困难，而且随着人们将技术支持添加到硬件的技术产品的生命周期中，您可能会很快看到更多具有此支持的硬件设备。超出您的预期。
Kevin: I suspect a lot of the people that are most vocally opposed to this are developers on a Mac who use Chrome as their browser of choice because, as you may or may not realize, listener, Flash on the Mac, playing video in a Flash movie on the Mac has traditionally been suboptimal, you know, having native video support you know a lot of people, especially Windows users used to their relatively fast and reliable Flash Player on Windows, they might go what’s the big deal, I don’t care if my video is played natively or through a Flash movie as long as it plays, whereas on the Mac at least until very recently video played through a Flash Player could pause, could slow down other things going on on your machine, could eat your battery, cause your CPU fan to spin up like crazy.
凯文(Kevin)：我怀疑很多反对这一观点的人是Mac上的开发人员，他们使用Chrome作为他们的首选浏览器，因为您可能意识到，也可能没有意识到，Mac上的监听器，Flash会在您知道，Mac上的Flash电影历来不是最佳选择，您知道很多人，特别是Windows用户习惯了Windows上相对快速和可靠的Flash Player，他们可能会做大事了，我不知道。不在乎我的视频是本地播放还是通过Flash电影播放，只要在Mac上播放，至少直到最近，通过Flash Player播放的视频可能会暂停，可能减慢计算机上发生的其他事情，可能电池，导致CPU风扇疯狂旋转。
Louis: As bad as it is on Mac I can guarantee you it’s worse on Linux.
Louis：和Mac一样糟糕，我可以保证，在Linux上情况更糟。
Kevin: (Laughs) Yeah! I didn’t even realize, yeah, of course it would be worse. So ordinary users may not care about this but developers who tend to be on these days slightly more fringe environments feel the difference between native video and Flash a lot more, and so, yeah.
凯文：(笑)是的！ 我什至没有意识到，当然会更糟。 因此，普通用户可能对此并不关心，但是如今处于边缘环境的开发人员会感觉原生视频和Flash之间的差异要大得多，是的。
Louis: I mean I think for the foreseeable future you’re still gonna see a lot of people who encode H.264, run that native and then wrap it in Flash as a fall back because that right now does actually run on everything more or less. So your iOS devices get the H.264, Safari gets the H.264, then you’ve got your Chrome, your Mozilla, and your Opera that’ll get the Flash fall back. And that’s sort of a reasonable— So you only encode once and then you provide suboptimal experience to some of your users.
路易斯：我的意思是，我认为在可预见的将来，您仍然会看到很多编码H.264，运行该本机然后将其包装在Flash中作为回退功能的人，因为现在实际上可以在更多或更多产品上运行减。 因此，您的iOS设备获得了H.264，Safari获得了H.264，那么您的Chrome，Mozilla和Opera将使Flash退步。 那是合理的-因此，您只编码一次，然后为某些用户提供次佳的体验。
Kevin: On the desktop it’s easy to say it’s a wash because there are so many CPU cycles to spare, and you can afford to, for a transitional period, decode video in software if you really need to. On the handsets on the phones it’s such a different landscape, and I’m sure that Google is going to have to be the first ones to put out a battery restricted device that can play WebM in hardware and can’t play H.264 in hardware. It seems like they’ve taken the leap on the desktop but it’s such a bigger leap to take on mobile devices. I’m looking forward to seeing it though.
凯文(Kevin)：在台式机上，很容易说是一次洗手，因为有太多的CPU周期可以使用，如果需要，您可以在过渡时期内用软件解码视频。 在手机上的手机情况截然不同，我敢肯定，谷歌将必须率先推出一款电池受限的设备，该设备可以在硬件中播放WebM，而不能在其中播放H.264。硬件。 似乎他们已经在台式机上取得了飞跃，但在移动设备上飞跃了更大的飞跃。 我很期待看到它。
Louis: Yeah, it’s going to be an interesting playing field for the next few years at least, and it’s also is going to depend, it depends on a few things, it depends on what Apple does, it depends on what Android device manufacturers do, and Android device manufacturers are pretty fragmented as is, there’s a lot of different players out there and they’re all doing different things for different reasons, so what they choose to do in terms of hardware support is gonna be interesting. And then what Apple does; Apple may look at this and say “Well if all of YouTube is available in WebM and most of our users primarily care about seeing YouTube videos then it’s not that big a step for us to add this support for the chip”, because the IP for the hardware decoder is out there, Google has open sourced that as well, so it’s available for the hardware manufacturers, so I think it’s one of those things where you do have to wait and see.
路易斯：是的，至少在接下来的几年中，这将是一个有趣的竞争环境，而且还取决于，它取决于几件事，取决于苹果公司的工作，取决于Android设备制造商的工作，而Android设备制造商的现状则非常分散，那里有许多不同的玩家，并且出于不同的原因他们都在做不同的事情，因此他们选择在硬件支持方面做的事情会很有趣。 然后苹果做什么？ 苹果公司可能会这样看，并说：“好吧，如果WebM上所有YouTube都可用，并且我们的大多数用户主要关心观看YouTube视频，那么对于我们来说，添加对该芯片的支持并不重要。”硬件解码器在那里，Google也已经开源了，因此硬件制造商可以使用它，因此我认为这是您必须拭目以待的事情之一。
Kevin: We’ll get there.
凯文：我们到那儿。
Louis: But I for one am happy that Google kind of took a stand and they probably saved a big chunk of change while they were doing it.
路易斯：但是我很高兴Google能够站出来，他们在这样做的过程中可能节省了一大笔钱。
Kevin: Do you think?
凯文：你觉得呢？
Louis: I think they were probably paying a few mil to MPEG-LA.
路易斯：我想他们可能要为MPEG-LA支付几百万美元。
Kevin: I think they will be for a while yet, though.
凯文：我想他们会待一段时间。
Louis: Yeah, but not for the browser.
路易斯：是的，但不适用于浏览器。
Kevin: Right, yeah.
凯文：对，是的。
Louis: It might be insignificant in the scope of Google’s budget, but you know.
路易：在Google的预算范围内可能微不足道，但您知道。
Kevin: You just compare it to what they must be paying for that license for YouTube.
凯文：您可以将其与他们必须为YouTube支付的许可费用相比。
Louis: Yeah, right, obviously it’s not gonna be huge, but everything counts.
路易斯：是的，很明显，它不会很大，但是一切都很重要。
Kevin: Where would we be without Google? I mean that sounds like such a fanboy statement but I kind of mean it, like you know for a while there everyone seemed very ready to capitulate on video, they were going to say look we need open, free standards for markup, for styles, for scripting, maybe even for audio, but when we get to video people kind of went you know what video is voodoo, we had our shot at it and that was Ogg Theora, we couldn’t do a good job in the open source arena, someone needs to get paid for video and so we’re willing to sacrifice, we’re willing to say okay you know what the best format for video on the Web is not a free, open source encodable/decodable format, it’s H.264. Where would we be without Google? If Google hadn’t been there to come along and sign that check I don’t feel like anyone else would have, I think like the Microsofts and the Apples of the world were ready to write those checks and the days of being able to implement the Web as a platform for free would be over.
凯文：没有Google，我们会去哪里？ 我的意思是听起来像是个狂热的声明，但我的意思是，就像您知道一段时间以来，每个人似乎都准备在视频上投降一样，他们会说我们需要开放，免费的标记标准，样式，脚本，甚至是音频，但当我们接触视频时，人们知道视频是伏都教，我们就对它进行了拍摄，那就是Ogg Theora，我们无法在开源领域做得很好，有人需要为视频付款，所以我们愿意牺牲，我们愿意说好吧，您知道网络上最佳的视频格式不是免费的，可编码/可解码的开源格式，而是H。 264。 没有Google，我们会去哪里？ 如果Google没来过那里并签署该支票，我感觉其他人都不会有，我认为像微软公司和世界各地的苹果公司准备写那些支票以及能够实施的日子作为免费平台的网络将结束。
Louis: Yeah, I think that’s a fair assessment, and when we talk about Apple and Microsoft writing those checks don’t forget about Apple and Microsoft cashing those checks because both of those are members of MPEG-LA, so they’re receiving the royalties as well, so it’s not just that flat an issue. It’s great that Google could come out and do this, I think it’s probably a good thing and it’ll take a long time to play out and it may not work, it’s still definitely up in the air and Apple has enough dominance especially in the mobile space that if they decide no we’re not doing it then it’s never gonna be a viable option, you’re still gonna have to dual encode if you want to provide video to iOS devices, and iOS devices is a big market.
Louis：是的，我认为这是一个公平的评估，当我们谈论Apple和Microsoft编写这些支票时，请不要忘记Apple和Microsoft兑现了这些支票，因为它们都是MPEG-LA的成员，所以他们都收到了特许权使用费也是如此，所以这不仅仅是一个平坦的问题。 Google可以出来并做到这一点真是太好了，我认为这可能是一件好事，而且要花很长时间才能发挥出来，而且可能无法正常工作，它肯定还处于悬而未决的状态，而且苹果公司拥有足够的统治力，尤其是在移动空间，如果他们决定不这样做，那么它永远不会是一个可行的选择，如果您想向iOS设备提供视频，则仍然需要双重编码，而iOS设备是一个很大的市场。
Kevin: I wonder if video is the final frontier here or if there is some next medium, some next form of content that we’re gonna have this same issue over—
凯文(Kevin)：我想知道视频是这里的最后疆界，还是我们要解决同样的问题？
Louis: Oh, they’ll come up with something.
路易斯：哦，他们会想出一些办法。
Kevin: —where it seems way too hard to do open source and free and we’re gonna be all too ready to take out our pocketbooks and start writing someone a check to add that feature to the Web, and will Google be there to write that big check for us when the day comes.
凯文： —似乎很难做到开源和免费，而我们将准备拿出我们的皮夹，开始写给别人支票将该功能添加到Web上，而Google会在那里写吗？一天到来时对我们来说意义重大。
Louis: Who knows? I guess we’ll just have to ride it out. Stay on the Web, stay tuned.
路易斯：谁知道？ 我想我们只需要把它赶出去。 保持在线状态，继续关注。
Kevin: There were a couple of other stories that we didn’t really cover on the podcast this week, and since I have you here I’d love to get your thoughts on them. The first one is—
凯文：本周的播客中我们还没有真正报道过其他一些故事，由于我在这里，我很想听听您对它们的看法。 第一个是-
Louis: The logo.
路易斯：徽标。
Kevin: —the renewed furor around HTML5, which may or may not be called HTML5 depending on who you ask.
凯文(Kevin)： —有关HTML5的新话题，根据您要求的人而定，HTML5可能会也可能不会被称为HTML5。
Louis: Depending on who you ask, that’s right.
路易斯：根据您的要求，是对的。
Kevin: I think this all came back on the landscape with the introduction of the HTML5 logo.
凯文：我认为随着HTML5徽标的引入，这一切又重新流行起来。
Louis: The logo, the feared logo.
路易斯：徽标，令人恐惧的徽标。
Kevin: Which if you haven’t seen it you should go to w3.org/html/logo.
凯文：如果您还没有看到它，那您应该去w3.org/html/logo 。
Louis: It is supposedly a logo for HTML5. There was initially some confusion and there still is really as to what they mean by HTML5 when they put forth this logo. So as you scroll down the page at /logo in the W3C site you’ll see that it has these basically eight classes of things that are part of what this logo stands for.
路易斯：据说它是HTML5的徽标。 最初存在一些混淆，但当他们提出此徽标时，它们实际上仍然是HTML5的含义。 因此，当您向下滚动W3C站点中/ logo上的页面时，您会看到它基本上具有这八类内容，这些都是该徽标所代表的内容。
Kevin: Right. So there’s HTML5 semantics, offline and storage, device access, connectivity, multimedia, 3D graphics and effects, performance and integration, and CSS3 styling.
凯文：对。 因此有HTML5语义，离线和存储，设备访问，连接性，多媒体，3D图形和效果，性能和集成以及CSS3样式。
Louis: CSS styling, that’s right.
Louis： CSS样式，是的。
Kevin: I like how they saved that one for last, kind of catches you by surprise.
凯文：我喜欢他们如何将那个保存下来，有点让您惊讶。
Louis: (Laughs) It does. So each of those things is represented by a really, really cryptic pictogram which if anyone can perform a quiz where they can identify what each one is—
路易斯：(笑)是的。 因此，这些东西中的每一个都由一个非常神秘的象形图表示，如果有人可以进行测验，他们就可以识别每个东西是什么-
Kevin: Yeah, you need one of those—you shuffle them up and you have to draw lines between them. (laughs)
凯文：是的，您需要其中之一-将它们洗牌，并且必须在它们之间画线。 (笑)
Louis: So, yeah, it’s a weird move coming from the W3C, or generally speaking somewhat of a more conservative body, and who you’d think would be the pedants who would be saying “No, wait, HTML5 it’s actually the HTML specification.”
Louis：是的，这是来自W3C的怪异举动，或者说总体上讲是一个较为保守的机构，而您会以为是行话的人会说：“不，等等，HTML5实际上是HTML规范。”
Kevin: Yeah, if anyone!
凯文：是的，如果有人！
Louis: If anyone it would be the W3C, and here they come out with this logo that’s sort of—
路易斯：如果有人的话，那就是W3C，在这里，他们拿出这个徽标，有点像-
Kevin: Initially they had a statement on this page that said what does this logo stand for, and it said the HTML5 and the HTML5 logo represents HTML5 technology including CSS3, and basically the entire raft of modern web standards they grouped under HTML5, which is something we have ridiculed on this podcast before; we’ve called HTML5 the “kitchen sink” term, that it can mean anything, it can mean nothing, and it’s really been diluted over the course of the past year from a very specific technical meaning to a meaningless technology buzzword.
凯文(Kevin)：最初他们在此页上发表了一个声明，说该徽标代表什么，它说HTML5和HTML5徽标代表了HTML5技术，包括CSS3，基本上是他们归类为HTML5的全部现代Web标准，我们以前在这个播客上嘲笑过的东西； 我们将HTML5称为“厨房水槽”一词，它可以表示任何含义，也可以不表示任何含义，并且在过去的一年中，它实际上已经从非常具体的技术含义稀释为毫无意义的技术流行语。
Louis: It’s funny, I’m actually gonna disagree on that. I’ve always had the opinion that this use of HTML5 as this catch-all marketing term isn’t as bad a thing as most people would seem to have you believe.
路易斯：很好笑，我实际上不同意这一点。 我一直认为，将HTML5用作这个笼统的营销术语并不像大多数人认为的那样糟糕。
Kevin: You would think, though, if anyone would be upset by it—
凯文：不过，您会认为，如果有人对此感到不满，
Louis: It would be the W3C.
路易斯：那将是W3C。
Kevin: Right. So why is it nothing to be too worried about?
凯文：对。 那么，为什么不用太担心呢？
Louis: Well, so I think that if you look at these things, no matter what you think about the little pictograms that represent them or how they all tie together into the spec, we all recognize them as something that have gained browser support in the past year or two, something largely driven by the rise of mobile devices like iOS and Android which have modern WebKit engines in them, so things like offline and storage, like so we’re talking about what they call device access includes geolocation, microphones, cameras, tilt, all that kind of mobile related stuff, they talk about connectivity which is mostly referring to web sockets, multimedia is of course audio and video which we’ve been talking about, graphics and effects they’re talking about SVG, they’re talking about Canvas, they’re talking about WebGL.
路易斯：好吧，所以我认为，如果您看这些东西，无论您如何看待代表它们的小象形图，或者它们如何与规格结合在一起，我们都认为它们是在浏览器中获得了支持的东西。在过去的一两年中，很大程度上是由移动设备(例如装有现代WebKit引擎的iOS和Android)的兴起所推动的，因此诸如脱机和存储之类的东西，例如我们正在谈论的他们所说的设备访问包括地理位置，麦克风，相机，倾斜镜头，与移动相关的所有内容，他们谈论的连接性主要是指网络套接字，多媒体当然是我们一直在谈论的音频和视频，他们谈论的是SVG的图形和效果，在谈论Canvas，在谈论WebGL。
Kevin: They’re talking about CSS transforms as well.
凯文：他们也在谈论CSS转换。
Louis: They’re talking about CSS 3D transforms. Performance and integration they’re talking about web workers primarily and CSS3, so all of this stuff really in everyone’s mind has been tied together for quite some time, right, we’re all aware that if you’re building this modern web application that uses—
路易斯：他们正在谈论CSS 3D转换。 他们主要是在谈论Web Worker和CSS3的性能和集成，所以在所有人的脑海中所有这些东西实际上已经捆绑在一起了一段时间，对了，我们都知道，如果您要构建这种现代Web应用程序，使用—
Kevin: Well, I don’t know about tied together, I would just say that’s a state of the Web in 2010.
凯文：嗯，我不知道捆绑在一起，我只是说这是2010年的网络状态。
Louis: That’s a fair assessment.
路易斯：这是一个公平的评估。
Kevin: So if this logo represents a website built in 2010 I’m with you.
凯文：所以，如果这个徽标代表一个建于2010年的网站，那么我与您在一起。
Louis: I think it does (laughter), I do think that’s what it means.
路易斯：我认为确实如此(笑声)，我的确是那意思。
Kevin: Alright.
凯文：好吧。
Louis: I do have issues with the thing, I mean my issues are these were pictograms and the fact that who’s going to display this, I think they kind of meant it to be like those old little W3C valid HTML valid CSS things—
路易斯：我确实有问题，我的意思是我的问题是象形图，以及谁将要展示这个事实，我认为它们有点像那些旧的W3C有效HTML有效CSS有效的东西，
Kevin: Except that the frequently asked questions here, because I thought immediately okay so this is the anti-Flash logo, this was my initial reaction, we have used everything except Flash on this website that’s why you would use this logo, but the frequently asked questions says “Can I use this logo on websites that aren’t built with HTML5?” And the answer is, “Yes, for instance many people have used it on their blogs to show their support.” “Does this logo imply validity?” “No, this logo does not imply validity or conformance.” (laughs) It’s the mean-nothing logo about the mean-nothing buzzword.
凯文(Kevin)：除了这里的常见问题外，因为我认为这没问题，所以这是反Flash徽标，这是我最初的React，我们在此网站上使用了Flash以外的所有内容，这就是您使用该徽标的原因，但是被问到的问题是：“我可以在非HTML5网站上使用此徽标吗？” 答案是：“是的，例如，许多人在博客上使用它来表示支持。” “此徽标暗示有效吗？” “不，此徽标并不表示有效性或一致性。” (笑)这是关于无意义流行语的无意义标志。
Louis: Yeah, alright, I don’t think it’s a mean nothing buzzword, though, I think if you go out there and ask like I’m building an HTML5 web application and you wouldn’t have to tell someone that you’re using CSS3 box-shadow and text-shadow and @font-face or that you’re using perhaps geolocation, you know, a lot of these things are for better or worse kind of bundled into a lot of people’s minds as what falls under HTML5, and whether that’s actually true in terms of the spec or not I think it’s a clear way of representing this group of technologies.
路易斯：是的，我认为这并不是什么时髦的词汇，但是，我认为如果您走出去问我正在构建HTML5 Web应用程序，而不必告诉别人您正在使用CSS3的box-shadow和text-shadow以及@font-face或者您正在使用地理定位，您知道，很多事情无论是好是坏都捆绑在很多人的脑海中，因为HTML5属于这种情况，无论在规格方面是否确实如此，我认为这是代表这组技术的一种清晰方法。
Kevin: I’m wondering how relevant this is gonna be in a year’s time at the pace we’re currently moving.
Kevin: I'm wondering how relevant this is gonna be in a year's time at the pace we're currently moving.
Louis: The logo, absolutely nil. Zero. (laughs)
Louis: The logo, absolutely nil. Zero. (笑)
Kevin: Yeah, because I read an article earlier today about why Firefox 4—which is currently at beta 10, and once again a reminder to our listeners if you haven’t downloaded the Firefox 4 beta and tested your site in it now is your chance. But, this article about how Firefox 4 doesn’t pass the Acid3 test and probably never will, and at first glance I went “Oh this should be good, this will be rich,” and I went and read it and I actually completely agree with their reasoning because that last three percent it’s at 97% now and has been for several versions, and that last 3% is SVG fonts, which it’s testing the ability to load extra fonts into your SVG graphics, which it turns out is not a very well defined portion of the SVG spec, and also the interactions it would have between the SVG, the Scalable Vector Graphics that appear on your site and the HTML that appears on your site, are not well defined in the specs either. So there’s a lot of— If you implement this you have to make a lot of decisions as a browser vendor and there’s no spec to tell you what the right answer to those decisions are. The browsers that do pass the Acid3 test with 100% have basically made arbitrary decisions on those points and have really just implemented the bare minimum of these features to pass the test; really the support for those features is basically useless, all it is there to do is to pass the Acid3 test. And so we have this test now that when it was introduced some odd number of years ago it was the best tool to measure, for the next little while, browser support of modern web standards, but here we are now a few years later and it is this misleading thing.
Kevin: Yeah, because I read an article earlier today about why Firefox 4—which is currently at beta 10, and once again a reminder to our listeners if you haven't downloaded the Firefox 4 beta and tested your site in it now is your chance. But, this article about how Firefox 4 doesn't pass the Acid3 test and probably never will, and at first glance I went “Oh this should be good, this will be rich,” and I went and read it and I actually completely agree with their reasoning because that last three percent it's at 97% now and has been for several versions, and that last 3% is SVG fonts, which it's testing the ability to load extra fonts into your SVG graphics, which it turns out is not a very well defined portion of the SVG spec, and also the interactions it would have between the SVG, the Scalable Vector Graphics that appear on your site and the HTML that appears on your site, are not well defined in the specs either. So there's a lot of— If you implement this you have to make a lot of decisions as a browser vendor and there's no spec to tell you what the right answer to those decisions are. The browsers that do pass the Acid3 test with 100% have basically made arbitrary decisions on those points and have really just implemented the bare minimum of these features to pass the test; really the support for those features is basically useless, all it is there to do is to pass the Acid3 test. And so we have this test now that when it was introduced some odd number of years ago it was the best tool to measure, for the next little while, browser support of modern web standards, but here we are now a few years later and it is this misleading thing.
The HTML5 logo with its eight sub-logos, and they have this tool on the site that lets you tick the boxes that your site or your browser supports and it generates this HTML5 logo with the sub-logos embedded in it to show just what your site or your browser supports. It seems to me if all of the browsers were to come to this page now and go alright we want to display the version of the logo on our site to advertise the modern standards support of our browser they’d go, yep, tick that box, tick that box, tick that box and they would all have the version of the logo with all eight of the sub-logos in it because they all have some level of support for these things. And even now in 2011 you get this sort of everyone claiming 100% and it seems pretty useless and let alone where it’s gonna be in five years when we are arguing over features of HTML that were not even imagined when this was put together.
The HTML5 logo with its eight sub-logos, and they have this tool on the site that lets you tick the boxes that your site or your browser supports and it generates this HTML5 logo with the sub-logos embedded in it to show just what your site or your browser supports. It seems to me if all of the browsers were to come to this page now and go alright we want to display the version of the logo on our site to advertise the modern standards support of our browser they'd go, yep, tick that box, tick that box, tick that box and they would all have the version of the logo with all eight of the sub-logos in it because they all have some level of support for these things. And even now in 2011 you get this sort of everyone claiming 100% and it seems pretty useless and let alone where it's gonna be in five years when we are arguing over features of HTML that were not even imagined when this was put together.
Louis: Yep, I agree. You’ve got to give it to them from a branding perspective.
Louis: Yep, I agree. You've got to give it to them from a branding perspective.
Kevin: Right, aesthetically what do you think?
Kevin: Right, aesthetically what do you think?
Louis: When I first saw the logo out of context I didn’t like it, I thought it was kind of goofy and cartoony and whatnot, but then when I saw the full branding site that they’ve put together it kind of makes the logo make sense because it fits into this aesthetic that they’ve put together, and it is an impressive piece of work, I think it’s a really good looking site. And if there are people out there who weren’t excited by this stuff or who might’ve though HTML5 is just article elements and section elements and then some rounded corners in CSS3, and if this can open people’s eyes to “Oh wait there’s all this stuff about geolocation, about web workers that’s becoming standardized and that is well supported across a lot of browsers and that you can start using and that really does amplify the power, potential power of a website pretty significantly”, then that can only be a good thing. The only potential risk is that it might lead some people to misunderstand what HTML5 is, I’m not even really sure that is a risk, or that it might lead people to sort of think that this is where we’re at and then anything beyond this is no longer HTML5 or if browsers start implementing some new feature, as you were saying, that it doesn’t count as part of HTML5 or doesn’t register as something cool that you should be using. But I’m not sure I see a risk of it.
Louis: When I first saw the logo out of context I didn't like it, I thought it was kind of goofy and cartoony and whatnot, but then when I saw the full branding site that they've put together it kind of makes the logo make sense because it fits into this aesthetic that they've put together, and it is an impressive piece of work, I think it's a really good looking site. And if there are people out there who weren't excited by this stuff or who might've though HTML5 is just article elements and section elements and then some rounded corners in CSS3, and if this can open people's eyes to “Oh wait there's all this stuff about geolocation, about web workers that's becoming standardized and that is well supported across a lot of browsers and that you can start using and that really does amplify the power, potential power of a website pretty significantly”, then that can only be a good thing. The only potential risk is that it might lead some people to misunderstand what HTML5 is, I'm not even really sure that is a risk, or that it might lead people to sort of think that this is where we're at and then anything beyond this is no longer HTML5 or if browsers start implementing some new feature, as you were saying, that it doesn't count as part of HTML5 or doesn't register as something cool that you should be using. But I'm not sure I see a risk of it.
Kevin: I kind of like the look of it, I agree it’s a beautiful piece of branding work, I think the 5 is the biggest problem in it.
Kevin: I kind of like the look of it, I agree it's a beautiful piece of branding work, I think the 5 is the biggest problem in it.
Louis: It has surfaced, that all the sub-logos—
Louis: It has surfaced, that all the sub-logos—
Kevin: We’ll come back to the 5; we’ll come back to the 5. I want to just touch on something here that I want to figure out how to say this without burning any bridges because I know people who work at the W3C, and I respect them, in some cases I am amazed by their intelligence and how much they know and how much of their time they give to the open standards movement. So, with that said, I’m always hearing out of the W3C that the reason things go so slowly is because so much of the real work that is being done is being done in volunteer, in spare time by people who could be getting paid a lot more to be doing other things, and attracting that kind of effort is really difficult and they have trouble getting people to shoulder the burden of things like editing specs and extracting consensus out of a mailing list of 100 angry people, and that’s hard work. And this to me looks like someone went home on the weekend and went screw this, I don’t want to actually work on any specs this weekend, I’m gonna design a logo. And it was meant to be a weekend and two weeks later they’ve got this beautiful branding site and they showed it to somebody at the W3C and they couldn’t help but go “Good work, Bobby!” And this within a week was thrown up on the W3C’s site without a whole lot of consideration. You know, I hesitate to cast aspersions here but this feels like the W3C doing stuff that their time is better spent elsewhere.
Kevin: We'll come back to the 5; we'll come back to the 5. I want to just touch on something here that I want to figure out how to say this without burning any bridges because I know people who work at the W3C, and I respect them, in some cases I am amazed by their intelligence and how much they know and how much of their time they give to the open standards movement. So, with that said, I'm always hearing out of the W3C that the reason things go so slowly is because so much of the real work that is being done is being done in volunteer, in spare time by people who could be getting paid a lot more to be doing other things, and attracting that kind of effort is really difficult and they have trouble getting people to shoulder the burden of things like editing specs and extracting consensus out of a mailing list of 100 angry people, and that's hard work. And this to me looks like someone went home on the weekend and went screw this, I don't want to actually work on any specs this weekend, I'm gonna design a logo. And it was meant to be a weekend and two weeks later they've got this beautiful branding site and they showed it to somebody at the W3C and they couldn't help but go “Good work, Bobby!” And this within a week was thrown up on the W3C's site without a whole lot of consideration. You know, I hesitate to cast aspersions here but this feels like the W3C doing stuff that their time is better spent elsewhere.
Louis: I have to agree with you there, I don’t think it’s necessarily — it’s definitely not part of their core mission by any understanding, there’s a lot of other things that are issues at the moment and as we’ll talk about very soon the sort of tensions with the WHAT Working Group are some of those things, and yeah I think there’s probably a lot of room for these people maybe knuckling down and focusing on trying to get the specs as good as they can be and getting that buy-in from browser makers. But you never know, I mean if this— I can’t claim to know what they were thinking, what the process was behind it, they haven’t really explained it a lot. One thing that they did do is come out and change the FAQ—
Louis: I have to agree with you there, I don't think it's necessarily — it's definitely not part of their core mission by any understanding, there's a lot of other things that are issues at the moment and as we'll talk about very soon the sort of tensions with the WHAT Working Group are some of those things, and yeah I think there's probably a lot of room for these people maybe knuckling down and focusing on trying to get the specs as good as they can be and getting that buy-in from browser makers. But you never know, I mean if this— I can't claim to know what they were thinking, what the process was behind it, they haven't really explained it a lot. One thing that they did do is come out and change the FAQ—
Kevin: Yeah, they’ve been responsive to criticism.
Kevin: Yeah, they've been responsive to criticism.
Louis: —after there was criticism of bundling all these technologies together they changed the FAQ to say we don’t mean to say that all of these technologies are part of HTML5 we just mean this is a logo that can be used to represent HTML5 and that could be supplemented by all these additional technologies.
Louis: —after there was criticism of bundling all these technologies together they changed the FAQ to say we don't mean to say that all of these technologies are part of HTML5 we just mean this is a logo that can be used to represent HTML5 and that could be supplemented by all these additional technologies.
Kevin: I mean they’re selling t-shirts and stickers, maybe it’s a fundraising effort, and if that’s the case then forget everything I said; if they need to raise money and this is the way they’ve figured out to do it, great. I applaud it if that’s the case.
Kevin: I mean they're selling t-shirts and stickers, maybe it's a fundraising effort, and if that's the case then forget everything I said; if they need to raise money and this is the way they've figured out to do it, great. I applaud it if that's the case.
But let’s come back to this 5 because in the past week we’ve had related news from the WHAT Working Group, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group I think it is, it’s been a while since I’ve spelled it out, but the people originally behind the HTML5 specification before it was accepted and adopted and endorsed by the W3C, they have made the move in this past week to remove the 5. It’s no longer called HTML5; we’re over this whole version number thing. What’s your initial take on this?
But let's come back to this 5 because in the past week we've had related news from the WHAT Working Group, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group I think it is, it's been a while since I've spelled it out, but the people originally behind the HTML5 specification before it was accepted and adopted and endorsed by the W3C, they have made the move in this past week to remove the 5. It's no longer called HTML5; we're over this whole version number thing. What's your initial take on this?
Louis: So this is really interesting, so before this happened I don’t know if you caught it but there was sort of a discussion where I first became aware of it, and it was before it was officially announced was on Jeremy Keith’s blog, where he sort of said I had this argument with Ian Hixon way back in the day about whether or not there should be a version number, and at the time Ian Hixon was saying there shouldn’t be and Keith was saying there should be.
Louis: So this is really interesting, so before this happened I don't know if you caught it but there was sort of a discussion where I first became aware of it, and it was before it was officially announced was on Jeremy Keith's blog , where he sort of said I had this argument with Ian Hixon way back in the day about whether or not there should be a version number, and at the time Ian Hixon was saying there shouldn't be and Keith was saying there should be.
Kevin: We can see an expression of this logic because the <!doctype> tag in the HTML5 no longer has a number in it.
Kevin: We can see an expression of this logic because the <!doctype> tag in the HTML5 no longer has a number in it.
Louis: That’s right. And I think that from a logical standpoint if you look at what they’re trying to do with the HTML5 or HTML specification which is trying to do something which is backwards compatible which works to the implementation, so it’s doing basically trying to standardize what browsers are doing rather than specify what browsers should do, it does make sense, right, because it is whether or not they call it a “living standard”, which is the terminology they’ve adopted to describe the new un-versioned spec, they call it a living standard, whether or not you call it a living standard it kind of is because there will always be features added to it.
Louis: That's right. And I think that from a logical standpoint if you look at what they're trying to do with the HTML5 or HTML specification which is trying to do something which is backwards compatible which works to the implementation, so it's doing basically trying to standardize what browsers are doing rather than specify what browsers should do, it does make sense, right, because it is whether or not they call it a “living standard”, which is the terminology they've adopted to describe the new un-versioned spec, they call it a living standard, whether or not you call it a living standard it kind of is because there will always be features added to it.
Kevin: HTML5 as it currently exists as a draft spec is already a way better spec technically than any HTML standard that has preceded it, that if you were a browser vendor having to look up the rules for how your browser should behave to be standards compliant you might be tempted to go and look at a completed spec like HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0, but in fact the HTML5 draft currently today provides way better, more solid advice even though it won’t be finalized anytime real soon. And so removing the version number sort of goes “This is HTML for all time, this is the definitive HTML, you don’t have to wait for us to put a version number on it to use it.”
Kevin: HTML5 as it currently exists as a draft spec is already a way better spec technically than any HTML standard that has preceded it, that if you were a browser vendor having to look up the rules for how your browser should behave to be standards compliant you might be tempted to go and look at a completed spec like HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0, but in fact the HTML5 draft currently today provides way better, more solid advice even though it won't be finalized anytime real soon. And so removing the version number sort of goes “This is HTML for all time, this is the definitive HTML, you don't have to wait for us to put a version number on it to use it.”
Louis: I don’t think it’s necessarily saying that this is a definitive version; it’s just saying that this is the best we’ve got. It’s not really a draft because a lot of this stuff is already implemented and we do have good consensus on it, so calling it a draft is kind of wrong, is his sort of justification, but what we can call it is a living standard that we’ll add things to but we’ll only add them to it when we’ve got buy-in from the browser vendors anyway, so you shouldn’t really have to worry about what the version is. Because if something’s in there it’s because the browser vendors have sort of agreed on it and we know that this is what we want to do and this is where we’re going. And because the new mantra at WHAT-WG is backwards compatibility and working to make sure that we don’t break compatibility with older websites then it seems like this is sort of a logical step. That being said, whether or not it’s ever gonna get any traction is a wholly ’nother story, right, because the W3C is still the one who’s putting forth the actual specification that’s recognized as a standard, the W3C’s draft sort of goes to them and then they’ll approve it.
Louis: I don't think it's necessarily saying that this is a definitive version; it's just saying that this is the best we've got. It's not really a draft because a lot of this stuff is already implemented and we do have good consensus on it, so calling it a draft is kind of wrong, is his sort of justification, but what we can call it is a living standard that we'll add things to but we'll only add them to it when we've got buy-in from the browser vendors anyway, so you shouldn't really have to worry about what the version is. Because if something's in there it's because the browser vendors have sort of agreed on it and we know that this is what we want to do and this is where we're going. And because the new mantra at WHAT-WG is backwards compatibility and working to make sure that we don't break compatibility with older websites then it seems like this is sort of a logical step. That being said, whether or not it's ever gonna get any traction is a wholly 'nother story, right, because the W3C is still the one who's putting forth the actual specification that's recognized as a standard, the W3C's draft sort of goes to them and then they'll approve it.
Kevin: Yeah. Well, it’s a whole weird incestuous thing that initially the HTML5 standard was created in protest of the slow movement of the W3C, and then the W3C kind of went, yeah, you’re right, what you’ve written is way better, we’re gonna adopt it, and the WHAT Working Group initially shook hands and then went “You know what? We’re gonna maintain our own version of that spec anyway just in case there’s any things we disagree on we can put it in ours, you don’t have to have it in yours.”, which immediately kind of took a lot of wind out of the sails of people who are going, “Yay, we’ve reunited HTML!” Uh, not so much.
凯文：是的。 Well, it's a whole weird incestuous thing that initially the HTML5 standard was created in protest of the slow movement of the W3C, and then the W3C kind of went, yeah, you're right, what you've written is way better, we're gonna adopt it, and the WHAT Working Group initially shook hands and then went “You know what? We're gonna maintain our own version of that spec anyway just in case there's any things we disagree on we can put it in ours, you don't have to have it in yours.”, which immediately kind of took a lot of wind out of the sails of people who are going, “Yay, we've reunited HTML!” Uh, not so much.
Louis: What bugs me about this isn’t that I— I do think it’s a good idea, I do think it’s an accurate representation of the work that the WHAT Working Group is doing, and I think it probably might help to clarify the understanding of what that shift has been, so they have gone from doing something which is very tightly versioned to doing something which was trying to be backwards compatible and a living standard, so they were already doing that but a lot of web developers might not have understood that because they see a version number on it, right. So I think all of that makes sense and it’s a good idea, but then you look at the fact that they did it three days after.
Louis: What bugs me about this isn't that I— I do think it's a good idea, I do think it's an accurate representation of the work that the WHAT Working Group is doing, and I think it probably might help to clarify the understanding of what that shift has been, so they have gone from doing something which is very tightly versioned to doing something which was trying to be backwards compatible and a living standard, so they were already doing that but a lot of web developers might not have understood that because they see a version number on it, right. So I think all of that makes sense and it's a good idea, but then you look at the fact that they did it three days after.
Kevin: This is where it becomes a dick move.
Kevin: This is where it becomes a dick move.
Louis: (Laughs) See, it is, you know, whether or not it was agreed, you know, I can agree with it.
Louis: (Laughs) See, it is, you know, whether or not it was agreed, you know, I can agree with it.
Kevin: And Ian Hixon states publicly that they considered doing this awhile back and then today they decide to actually do it.
Kevin: And Ian Hixon states publicly that they considered doing this awhile back and then today they decide to actually do it.
Louis: Yeah, right. So he says, he basically said that this change had been planned for over a year but there were people within WHAT who agreed with it, other people who disagreed with it, but then basically after the W3C put out their HTML5 logo he sort of said, well, now is as good a time as any, apparently, and walked around and asked people and he says that there was more agreement for the idea of removing HTML5—
路易斯：是的，对。 So he says, he basically said that this change had been planned for over a year but there were people within WHAT who agreed with it, other people who disagreed with it, but then basically after the W3C put out their HTML5 logo he sort of said, well, now is as good a time as any, apparently, and walked around and asked people and he says that there was more agreement for the idea of removing HTML5—
Kevin: According to some people it was the very next day.
Kevin: According to some people it was the very next day.
Louis: Yeah, that’s entirely possible. I just remember it following very hot on the heels. And it just seems like it’s something that’s only gonna add to the political infighting between the two groups. It wasn’t necessary to do it that quickly; we could’ve had the discussion out there with various people who were concerned.
Louis: Yeah, that's entirely possible. I just remember it following very hot on the heels. And it just seems like it's something that's only gonna add to the political infighting between the two groups. It wasn't necessary to do it that quickly; we could've had the discussion out there with various people who were concerned.
Kevin: They were taking feedback on the logo, why wouldn’t they suggest you know what, um, if this logo is meant to represent the emerging stable features of the ongoing standardization development process why don’t we make a generic web standards logo, take that orange shield and instead of putting a big white 5 on it put ‘web’ on it or something of that sort.
Kevin: They were taking feedback on the logo, why wouldn't they suggest you know what, um, if this logo is meant to represent the emerging stable features of the ongoing standardization development process why don't we make a generic web standards logo, take that orange shield and instead of putting a big white 5 on it put 'web' on it or something of that sort.
Louis: Something like that, yeah. There was a bunch of ways that this I think could’ve been handled that wouldn’t have had as much strife and potential infighting come out of it.
Louis: Something like that, yeah. There was a bunch of ways that this I think could've been handled that wouldn't have had as much strife and potential infighting come out of it.
Kevin: Yeah, but it’s par for the course from what we’ve seen out of these two groups, that although they are in an uneasy alliance it feels sometimes like the WHAT Working Group never misses an opportunity to, I don’t know, to stab them in the back sometimes.
Kevin: Yeah, but it's par for the course from what we've seen out of these two groups, that although they are in an uneasy alliance it feels sometimes like the WHAT Working Group never misses an opportunity to, I don't know, to stab them in the back sometimes.
Louis: To try and show off, yeah.
Louis: To try and show off, yeah.
Kevin: Yeah. Well, look, my initial reaction, though, politics aside, was positive of the removal of that version number; I think it’s the right move. Until I read this post by friend of SitePoint Roger Johansson at 456 Berea Street.
凯文：是的。 Well, look, my initial reaction, though, politics aside, was positive of the removal of that version number; I think it's the right move. Until I read this post by friend of SitePoint Roger Johansson at 456 Berea Street.
Louis: I have not read that post.
Louis: I have not read that post.
Kevin: He’s kind of playing devil’s advocate here, he’s saying yeah he sees the reasons for removing that version number, but he is happy that the W3C at least for the time being is sticking to its guns and will continue to put out versioned, numbered versions of this living spec. He sees that as a particularly good way of working because it really depends, the context that standards are being discussed, in whether those version numbers are useful or not. He says, for example, “I think we web professionals need a stable specification to refer to, especially when working in teams composed of people in different locations and even different companies. Being able to say this project uses HTML 4.01 strict is very useful since it gives everyone a stable reference that doesn’t change on a daily basis. Then there’s the maintenance, I can predict hearing ‘Last week this document was valid but now it isn’t and I haven’t changed anything. Why is that?’, from some clients. For projects where using valid HTML is a requirement of versionless HTML specification complicates things.” So I kind of agree with him there that maybe these two bodies are settling into the roles that are best suited for their individual strengths, that the WHAT Working Group should be forging forward with a living document and the W3C maybe should be trailing behind going “Oh okay that’s a stable version of that tag, we’re gonna mark it for HTML6, that’s gonna be the version we publish even if browser vendors have moved on and added features to it in future.”, maybe.
Kevin: He's kind of playing devil's advocate here, he's saying yeah he sees the reasons for removing that version number, but he is happy that the W3C at least for the time being is sticking to its guns and will continue to put out versioned, numbered versions of this living spec. He sees that as a particularly good way of working because it really depends, the context that standards are being discussed, in whether those version numbers are useful or not. He says, for example, “I think we web professionals need a stable specification to refer to, especially when working in teams composed of people in different locations and even different companies. Being able to say this project uses HTML 4.01 strict is very useful since it gives everyone a stable reference that doesn't change on a daily basis. Then there's the maintenance, I can predict hearing 'Last week this document was valid but now it isn't and I haven't changed anything. Why is that?', from some clients. For projects where using valid HTML is a requirement of versionless HTML specification complicates things.” So I kind of agree with him there that maybe these two bodies are settling into the roles that are best suited for their individual strengths, that the WHAT Working Group should be forging forward with a living document and the W3C maybe should be trailing behind going “Oh okay that's a stable version of that tag, we're gonna mark it for HTML6, that's gonna be the version we publish even if browser vendors have moved on and added features to it in future.”, maybe.
Louis: Yeah, I see that as kind of valid. It’s again gonna be one of those things that again we’ll have to see how it plays out and what the W3C does, right now they haven’t really responded in any public manner, they’re kind of acting as if this hasn’t happened; if you look at their blog they’re still talking about the logo and feedback on the logo, they really haven’t gone back and said “Oh what does the version thing mean?” So, yeah, it’s interesting, I do agree with Roger on the one point of being able to talk about what we’re doing, because if I say I’ve built my website using HTML that could easily mean HTML2, and that’s a problem. And a lot of people in the SitePoint comment thread, Craig Buckler wrote a post about the dropping of the version number, and that was sort of their complaint as working developers that it’s hard to use just HTML as a descriptor for anything because it basically is a descriptor for everything; if HTML5 is the kitchen sink, HTML is the entire kitchen.
Louis: Yeah, I see that as kind of valid. It's again gonna be one of those things that again we'll have to see how it plays out and what the W3C does, right now they haven't really responded in any public manner, they're kind of acting as if this hasn't happened; if you look at their blog they're still talking about the logo and feedback on the logo, they really haven't gone back and said “Oh what does the version thing mean?” So, yeah, it's interesting, I do agree with Roger on the one point of being able to talk about what we're doing, because if I say I've built my website using HTML that could easily mean HTML2, and that's a problem. And a lot of people in the SitePoint comment thread, Craig Buckler wrote a post about the dropping of the version number, and that was sort of their complaint as working developers that it's hard to use just HTML as a descriptor for anything because it basically is a descriptor for everything; if HTML5 is the kitchen sink, HTML is the entire kitchen.
Kevin: Well, these are where those sub-icons can start to play a role I think, that you can say we’re using HTML with geolocation, we’re using HTML with 3D geolocation maybe next version.
Kevin: Well, these are where those sub-icons can start to play a role I think, that you can say we're using HTML with geolocation, we're using HTML with 3D geolocation maybe next version.
Louis: (Laughs) 3D geolocation, that’s good.
Louis: (Laughs) 3D geolocation, that's good.
Kevin: Yeah, I think if we can start labeling these sub-elements of the standard.
Kevin: Yeah, I think if we can start labeling these sub-elements of the standard.
Louis: So you can check in in the Foursquare at the center of the earth— the Starbucks at the center of the earth on Foursquare is what I meant to say.
Louis: So you can check in in the Foursquare at the center of the earth— the Starbucks at the center of the earth on Foursquare is what I meant to say.
Kevin: (Laughs) Well, I think once upon a time you could’ve made the case that we don’t need three separate specs with three separate version numbers for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, today that goes without saying. Maybe HTML has gotten to the point where putting a version number on the whole thing is gonna be useless and we need to start versioning the little bits and pieces.
Kevin: (Laughs) Well, I think once upon a time you could've made the case that we don't need three separate specs with three separate version numbers for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, today that goes without saying. Maybe HTML has gotten to the point where putting a version number on the whole thing is gonna be useless and we need to start versioning the little bits and pieces.
Louis: Yeah, that probably also makes sense. And, again, I do think the WHAT Working Group has a role to play here, as you said, what they’re doing is sort of versionless, not exactly a “draft”, but a living standard that represents what the current best agreed upon solution is and what the browser should be working to, then that makes sense for that to be somewhere in a sort of a stable form rather then just these internal drafts that no one knows if they’re sort of still working documents. So Ian Hixon in respect to this, just got a quote here, says “In practice implementations all followed the latest specs draft anyway, not the latest snapshots. The problem with following the snapshot is that you end up following something that is known to be wrong, so that’s not the way to get interoperability.” So to have something out there that does represent the latest consensus is probably a good thing even if it means that the W3C is gonna have to pick and choose for what it wants to include in a snapshot just for purposes of having a spec that’s sort of frozen in time and that we can refer to. But then again you could also consider we could refer to it by date, you know, “this project is the HTML5”— or sorry, —“the HTML specification as of January 24, 2011,” and that will be the document I’ve got a copy of; it’s in the project repository so if you want to know how to do something you look in there.
Louis: Yeah, that probably also makes sense. And, again, I do think the WHAT Working Group has a role to play here, as you said, what they're doing is sort of versionless, not exactly a “draft”, but a living standard that represents what the current best agreed upon solution is and what the browser should be working to, then that makes sense for that to be somewhere in a sort of a stable form rather then just these internal drafts that no one knows if they're sort of still working documents. So Ian Hixon in respect to this, just got a quote here, says “In practice implementations all followed the latest specs draft anyway, not the latest snapshots. The problem with following the snapshot is that you end up following something that is known to be wrong, so that's not the way to get interoperability.” So to have something out there that does represent the latest consensus is probably a good thing even if it means that the W3C is gonna have to pick and choose for what it wants to include in a snapshot just for purposes of having a spec that's sort of frozen in time and that we can refer to. But then again you could also consider we could refer to it by date, you know, “this project is the HTML5”— or sorry, —“the HTML specification as of January 24, 2011,” and that will be the document I've got a copy of; it's in the project repository so if you want to know how to do something you look in there.
Kevin: HTML 2011, that would look pretty good on that orange shield.
Kevin: HTML 2011, that would look pretty good on that orange shield.
Louis: (laughs)
Louis: (laughs)
Kevin: Well, thank you Louis for sitting in on the podcast here today.
Kevin: Well, thank you Louis for sitting in on the podcast here today.
Louis: It’s been a pleasure, always good to talk about these things. It’s been a very exciting week, and it’s a lot of things that sort of testify to where we’re at in the Web, that things are moving again after a long period of stagnation to have stuff to talk about with regards to specs and video and all these things is testament to the fact that we’re getting somewhere.
Louis: It's been a pleasure, always good to talk about these things. It's been a very exciting week, and it's a lot of things that sort of testify to where we're at in the Web, that things are moving again after a long period of stagnation to have stuff to talk about with regards to specs and video and all these things is testament to the fact that we're getting somewhere.
Kevin: It’s worth the occasional dick move.
Kevin: It's worth the occasional dick move.
Louis: I think that should be the title of the episode: It’s worth the occasional dick move. (laughter)
Louis: I think that should be the title of the episode: It's worth the occasional dick move. (笑声)
Kevin: Alright, well thank you Louis.
Kevin: Alright, well thank you Louis.
Louis: Alright, thank you Kevin.
Louis: Alright, thank you Kevin.
Kevin: You can find Louis on Twitter @rssaddict.
Kevin: You can find Louis on Twitter @rssaddict .
Louis: That is correct.
Louis: That is correct.
Kevin: And thanks for listening to the SitePoint Podcast. If you have any thoughts or questions about today’s interview, please do get in touch. You can find SitePoint on Twitter @sitepointdotcom, and you can find me on Twitter @sentience. Visit sitepoint.com/podcast to leave a comment on this show and to subscribe to get every show automatically.
凯文：感谢您收听SitePoint播客。 如果您对今天的采访有任何想法或疑问，请保持联系。 你可以在Twitter上找到SitePoint @sitepointdotcom ，你可以找到我的Twitter @sentience 。 访问sitepoint.com/podcast对该节目发表评论并订阅以自动获得每一个节目。
This episode of the SitePoint Podcast is produced by Karn Broad and I’m Kevin Yank. Bye for now!
这集SitePoint播客由Karn Broad制作，我叫Kevin Yank。 暂时再见！
Theme music by Mike Mella.
Mike Mella的主题音乐。
Thanks for listening! Feel free to let us know how we’re doing, or to continue the discussion, using the comments field below.
谢谢收听！ 欢迎使用下面的评论字段让我们知道我们的状况，或者继续讨论。
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/podcast-97-the-occasional-dick-move-with-louis-simoneau/
