You know? If a new non-backwards-compatible version of HTML was standardized, the primary thing I'd want from it is for webforms to be moved to their own standard. Their own MIMEtype.
Browsers could still render them inline if they wanted, but it'd make it trivial for me to render them out-of-line! No different than how I'd handle media...
The other relatively minor thing I'd like to see is an absence of self-closing tags, for accessibility all leaves should be text! Like alt-text.
Question for the floor: Given such an HTML6 standard, what might the corresponding webforms standard look like?
Yes, I know about XForms...
2/2
@alcinnz
I thought #HTML and #CSS dropped version numbers similar to how #XMPP is infinitely extensible. Seeing how #Gemini is a rethink on scope and as a 20y dev I would think it would make more sense to simply replace HTML with other markup languages that have clearly defined use cases, scope and meet specific objectives.
@lorendias Honestly, I don't think I'd put much energy into pushing for a new "version" of HTML. It's perfectly reasonable to implement HTML/CSS with a tighter scope which still works fine on a majority of (non-dominant) webpages.
That's what I'm implementing! Because I think there's plenty of pages on the "longtail" which deserves to be preserved!
The primary changes I make are to 1) Drop JS support entirely & 2) Handle forms differently.