html

HTML Standard

7,987

2,606

7,987

2,046

View on GitHub

Top Related Projects

html

1,967

Deliverables of the HTML Working Group until October 2018

wpt

4,878

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

ecma262

14,980

Status, process, and documents for ECMA-262

Quick Overview

The whatwg/html repository is the official home of the HTML Living Standard, maintained by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG). This repository contains the source code for the HTML specification, which defines the core language of the World Wide Web: HTML.

Pros

Continuously updated and maintained, reflecting the latest web technologies and practices
Collaborative development process, allowing for community input and contributions
Comprehensive documentation of HTML features, including browser compatibility information
Serves as the authoritative reference for web developers and browser implementers

Cons

Can be overwhelming for beginners due to its technical nature and extensive content
Changes to the specification may take time to be implemented across all browsers
Some features described in the standard may not be widely supported or implemented
The living standard approach can make it challenging to reference specific versions of HTML

Getting Started

To contribute to or use the HTML Living Standard:

Visit the official HTML Living Standard website: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/
For contributions:
- Fork the repository on GitHub
- Make changes to the relevant files
- Submit a pull request for review
To report issues or suggest improvements:
- Open an issue on the GitHub repository
- Provide detailed information about the problem or suggestion
To stay updated:
- Watch the repository on GitHub
- Follow the WHATWG on social media or join their mailing list

Note: This is not a code library, so there are no code examples or quick start instructions for implementation. The repository contains the specification itself, which is used as a reference for web developers and browser implementers.

Competitor Comparisons

html

1,967

Deliverables of the HTML Working Group until October 2018

Pros of html (w3c)

More structured and formal standardization process
Wider industry participation and consensus-driven approach
Clearer versioning and release cycles

Cons of html (w3c)

Slower update and release process
May lag behind in adopting cutting-edge features
Potentially more bureaucratic decision-making

Code Comparison

html (whatwg):

<script type="module">
  import { foo } from './module.js';
  foo();
</script>

html (w3c):

<script src="module.js"></script>
<script>
  foo();
</script>

The WHATWG version uses ES6 modules, while the W3C version uses traditional script loading. This reflects WHATWG's tendency to adopt newer features more quickly.

Both repositories aim to standardize HTML, but they differ in their approaches. WHATWG's html is a "living standard" that evolves continuously, while W3C's html follows a more traditional versioning model. WHATWG tends to be more agile and quick to adopt new features, while W3C focuses on broader consensus and formal processes. Developers often refer to both standards, as they complement each other in many ways.

dom

1,563

DOM Standard

Pros of DOM

More focused and specific to DOM manipulation
Smaller codebase, potentially easier to understand and maintain
Provides a clear separation of concerns from HTML specification

Cons of DOM

Less comprehensive than the HTML specification
May require referencing HTML spec for full context in some cases
Potentially less frequent updates compared to HTML spec

Code Comparison

DOM (example of event handling):

document.addEventListener('click', function(event) {
  console.log('Clicked at:', event.clientX, event.clientY);
});

HTML (example of defining a custom element):

<script>
class MyElement extends HTMLElement {
  connectedCallback() {
    this.innerHTML = '<p>My custom element</p>';
  }
}
customElements.define('my-element', MyElement);
</script>
<my-element></my-element>

The DOM repository focuses on JavaScript APIs for manipulating document structure, while the HTML repository covers a broader range of web technologies and specifications. The DOM spec is more concise and targeted, making it easier to navigate for specific DOM-related information. However, the HTML spec provides a more comprehensive view of web standards, including DOM-related topics within its broader context.

webcomponents

4,357

Web Components specifications

Pros of webcomponents

Focused specifically on Web Components, providing a more specialized and in-depth resource
More active community involvement and contributions for Web Components-related topics
Faster iteration and experimentation with new Web Components features and ideas

Cons of webcomponents

Narrower scope compared to the comprehensive HTML specification
Potentially less stable or standardized, as it's a working group repository
May require additional context or knowledge of the broader HTML ecosystem

Code Comparison

html:

<div id="example">
  <p>This is a standard HTML element.</p>
</div>

webcomponents:

<custom-element>
  <p>This is a custom Web Component.</p>
</custom-element>

Summary

The html repository serves as the official specification for HTML, covering a wide range of topics and elements. In contrast, the webcomponents repository focuses specifically on Web Components technology, allowing for more specialized discussions and development. While html provides a comprehensive and stable reference, webcomponents offers a platform for innovation and experimentation in component-based web development. Developers should consider their specific needs when choosing which repository to refer to or contribute to.

wpt

4,878

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

Pros of wpt

Comprehensive test suite covering various web technologies
Collaborative effort with contributions from multiple browser vendors
Regularly updated to reflect the latest web standards

Cons of wpt

Larger repository size due to extensive test cases
May require more setup and configuration to run tests locally
Can be overwhelming for newcomers due to its broad scope

Code comparison

html:

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

wpt:

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

Key differences

html focuses on defining the HTML standard, while wpt provides tests for various web technologies
html is primarily maintained by WHATWG, whereas wpt involves multiple stakeholders
wpt includes test infrastructure and utilities, while html contains the specification text
html repository is more focused and smaller in size compared to the extensive wpt repository
wpt is designed for cross-browser testing, while html serves as a reference for HTML implementation

Use cases

Use html when referring to the official HTML specification or contributing to its development
Use wpt when developing or testing web technologies across different browsers and platforms

csswg-drafts

4,426

CSS Working Group Editor Drafts

Pros of csswg-drafts

More comprehensive coverage of CSS specifications
Frequent updates and active development
Broader community involvement in the drafting process

Cons of csswg-drafts

Potentially more complex structure due to multiple CSS modules
May have a steeper learning curve for newcomers

Code Comparison

csswg-drafts:

@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
  body {
    background-color: #333;
    color: #fff;
  }
}

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 showcases CSS media queries for dark mode, while the html example demonstrates HTML markup for responsive images. Both repositories contribute to web standards, but csswg-drafts focuses on styling and layout, whereas html covers broader HTML specifications.

csswg-drafts offers more detailed CSS-specific features and properties, making it ideal for developers working extensively with stylesheets. However, html provides a more holistic view of web document structure and semantics, which may be preferable for those seeking a comprehensive understanding of HTML elements and attributes.

ecma262

14,980

Status, process, and documents for ECMA-262

Pros of ecma262

More frequent releases and updates, allowing for faster language evolution
Clearer contribution guidelines and process for proposing new features
Extensive test suite (Test262) for ensuring specification compliance

Cons of ecma262

Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to html
More complex specification, potentially harder for newcomers to understand
Narrower scope, focusing solely on JavaScript language features

Code Comparison

html:

<article>
  <h1>My First Article</h1>
  <p>This is a paragraph in HTML.</p>
</article>

ecma262:

class Article {
  constructor(title, content) {
    this.title = title;
    this.content = content;
  }
}

The html repository focuses on defining the structure and semantics of web documents, while ecma262 specifies the JavaScript language itself. The html example shows how to create a simple article structure, whereas the ecma262 example demonstrates a JavaScript class definition for an article object.

Both repositories are crucial for web development, with html providing the foundation for document structure and ecma262 defining the behavior of JavaScript, the primary programming language for web interactivity.

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

This repository hosts the HTML Standard.

Code of conduct

We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all. Please read and respect the WHATWG Code of Conduct.

Contribution opportunities

We appreciate all contributions, see the guidelines for contributing for details, including information on how to build HTML output from the source file so you can preview your changes locally.

Tests

Tests are in the html/ directory of the web-platform-tests repository.

Blame

As the source file is too large for GitHub's blame utility, use blame for source on searchfox instead.

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