html

Deliverables of the HTML Working Group until October 2018

1,967

536

1,967

View on GitHub

Top Related Projects

wpt

4,878

Test suites for Web platform specs — including WHATWG, W3C, and others

Quick Overview

The w3c/html repository is the official home for the HTML specification maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It contains the source files for the HTML Living Standard, which defines the core language of the World Wide Web. This repository is used by the HTML Working Group to collaboratively develop and maintain the HTML specification.

Pros

Provides a centralized, authoritative source for the HTML specification
Allows for community involvement and contributions to the HTML standard
Offers transparency in the development process of web standards
Ensures up-to-date documentation of HTML features and best practices

Cons

Can be complex and technical for newcomers to web standards
Changes to the specification may take time to be implemented across browsers
The sheer volume of information can be overwhelming for casual users
Requires a deep understanding of web technologies to contribute effectively

Getting Started

To access and use the HTML specification:

Visit the official HTML Living Standard website: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/
For contributing or following development:
- Fork the repository on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/html
- Clone your fork: git clone https://github.com/your-username/html.git
- Set up the development environment as per the repository's instructions
Join the HTML Working Group to participate in discussions and decision-making processes

Note: This repository is not a code library, but rather a specification document. Therefore, code examples and quick start instructions for implementation are not applicable.

Competitor Comparisons

html

7,987

HTML Standard

Pros of html (WHATWG)

More frequent updates and active development
Broader community involvement and contributions
Living standard approach, reflecting current web practices

Cons of html (WHATWG)

Less formal standardization process
Potential for rapid changes that may be challenging to implement
Some organizations prefer the W3C's more structured approach

Code Comparison

WHATWG html:

<main>
  <h1>Main content</h1>
  <p>This is the main content of the page.</p>
</main>

W3C html:

<div role="main">
  <h1>Main content</h1>
  <p>This is the main content of the page.</p>
</div>

The WHATWG version uses the semantic <main> element, while the W3C version uses a <div> with a role attribute. This reflects WHATWG's focus on modern, semantic HTML elements.

Both repositories aim to standardize HTML, but they differ in their approaches. The WHATWG html repository tends to be more agile and reflective of current web development practices, while the W3C html repository follows a more traditional standardization process. Ultimately, the two groups have agreed to collaborate on a single version of the HTML standard, combining the strengths of both approaches.

content

9,118

The content behind MDN Web Docs

Pros of content

More comprehensive documentation covering a wider range of web technologies
Regularly updated with community contributions, ensuring up-to-date information
Includes interactive examples and browser compatibility data

Cons of content

Less focused on HTML specification details
May contain occasional inaccuracies due to community-driven content

Code comparison

html:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <title>Example</title>
</head>

content:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <title>My test page</title>
  </head>

The html repository focuses on the HTML specification, providing a more formal and standardized approach. In contrast, the content repository offers a broader range of web development topics, including HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and more.

While html is the authoritative source for HTML specifications, content provides practical examples, tutorials, and browser compatibility information. This makes content more accessible for developers learning web technologies.

However, content's broader scope means it may not delve as deeply into HTML specifics as html does. Additionally, the community-driven nature of content can occasionally lead to minor inaccuracies or outdated information, although these are usually quickly addressed through the contribution process.

wpt

4,878

Test suites for Web platform specs — including WHATWG, W3C, and others

Pros of wpt

Broader scope, covering multiple web technologies beyond just HTML
Larger community of contributors, leading to more frequent updates
More comprehensive test suite for web platform features

Cons of wpt

More complex structure due to its broader scope
Steeper learning curve for new contributors
May include tests for experimental or non-standardized features

Code Comparison

html:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <title>Sample HTML</title>
</head>

wpt:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Web Platform Test</title>
<script src="/resources/testharness.js"></script>
<script src="/resources/testharnessreport.js"></script>

The html repository focuses on the HTML specification, while wpt includes a broader range of web platform tests. The code snippets show that wpt includes additional scripts for testing purposes, reflecting its primary goal of comprehensive web platform testing.

Both repositories are crucial for web development, with html providing the core HTML specification and wpt offering a wide array of tests to ensure cross-browser compatibility and adherence to web standards.

csswg-drafts

4,426

CSS Working Group Editor Drafts

Pros of csswg-drafts

More frequent updates and active development
Broader scope, covering multiple CSS specifications
Extensive documentation and explanations for proposed changes

Cons of csswg-drafts

Larger repository size, potentially slower to clone and navigate
More complex structure due to multiple specifications
Higher learning curve for newcomers to the project

Code Comparison

csswg-drafts:

@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
  :root {
    --text-color: white;
    --background-color: black;
  }
}

html:

<picture>
  <source srcset="dark-image.jpg" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)">
  <img src="light-image.jpg" alt="Adaptive image">
</picture>

The csswg-drafts example shows CSS media queries for dark mode, while the html example demonstrates HTML markup for adaptive images based on color scheme preferences. This highlights the different focus areas of each repository, with csswg-drafts concentrating on styling and layout, and html focusing on structure and content.

webcomponents

4,357

Web Components specifications

Pros of webcomponents

Focuses specifically on Web Components, providing a more targeted and in-depth exploration of this technology
Encourages community involvement and experimentation with new web component features
Allows for faster iteration and proposal of new ideas related to web components

Cons of webcomponents

Smaller community and less comprehensive documentation compared to the html repository
May lack the broader context and integration with other HTML features found in the html repository
Potentially less stable or standardized, as it's a more experimental space

Code Comparison

html repository:

<div id="example">
  <p>Standard HTML structure</p>
</div>

webcomponents repository:

<custom-element>
  <p>Encapsulated custom element</p>
</custom-element>

Summary

The webcomponents repository is more focused on exploring and developing Web Components technology, while the html repository covers a broader range of HTML specifications. webcomponents offers a space for innovation and experimentation but may lack the comprehensive coverage and stability of the html repository. The code examples illustrate the difference between standard HTML structure and the use of custom elements in Web Components.

Convert designs to code with AI

Introducing Visual Copilot: A new AI model to turn Figma designs to high quality code using your components.

Try Visual Copilot

README

HTML

Per the MOU of W3C and WHATWG, W3C and WHATWG will work together on HTML and DOM in the WHATWG repositories, to produce a Living Standard and W3C Recommendations. This repository has been archived for historical purposes and is no longer maitained.

Old HTML repository

The old HTML repo is available for archival purposes.

Top Related Projects

Convert designs to code with AI

Introducing Visual Copilot: A new AI model to turn Figma designs to high quality code using your components.

Try Visual Copilot