So what if HTML5 doesn't technically include CSS3 and JavaScript. It's helpful to have a simple term for "the collection of web technologies that allow rich UI applications in browsers released ~2010." HTML5 fits the bill. Look at what the term "AJAX" did for AJAX, even if you weren't using XML.
I would have preferred something more like Web3.0 because HTML5 is one of the technologies being included in the broad term "HTML5". It's bound to lead to confusion and in many cases already has.
For example, you could have a Javscript coder always having to explain that he uses "HTML5" technologies but is not well-versed in actual HTML5 markup, which may not be required. I've seen numerous job listings where the person writing the job description is obviously absolutely confused over what they need.
I agree. HTML5 is a buzzword that gets companies excited about technology, and when that happens, I get paid.
But otherwise, what is going on here is that Mozilla is part of WHATWG, who is largely responsible for the success of HTML5. WC3 actually wanted to drop support for HTML (calling it done) and only within the last year decided to jump in the bandwagon and take credit. And then along the way, get things wrong - like this list of the Mozilla page.
I've always said, "to clients, it's ALL HTML5, but to developers, we should know the difference". But the WC3 is clouding that difference.
The rest of the world likes to keep things simple so we have this term HTML5 which means next generation web technology to most people, which is all they really have time for. They're running the world after all.
Geeks being who they are like to be pendantic and discuss the details ad nauseam. Gotta quit running into the weeds on the little things.
The terminology we're going to use is HTML5, and we understand it's a catch-all term. End of story. Next problem.
No, not at all. There is a spec for HTML5 and it is most certainly not 'next generation web technology'. It goes into great detail on a couple of specific features that browsers will aim to support.
The problem is that people often want the latest and greatest technology. Geolocation is a good example of this. They think because chrome is an html5 browser they can have geolocation and often are confused when you try to explain why that feature won't always work. "But it's part of html5!" they say.
Instead of bundling everything under "HTML5" I wish we could just talk about the actual features.
We do a lot of rich internet apps which are heavy HTML/JS and get asked a lot "Are you using HTML5" and I'd go down this whole spiel about "well really we like the CSS3 features" and "a lot of what we do isn't HTML5 its just HTML4 and Javascript" or "Maybe we try to use local storage but have to fall back to standard cookies, and backend persistence for legacy browsers".
Eventually gave up and now when people ask if an app is "HTML5" I just say "yes".
My self-imposed rule is if the page's doctype is <!DOCTYPE html> then I say it's HTML5 (regardless of what other technologies I actually use - it could just be a static page for all I care).
how are we still talking about this? for over a year i was a proponent for "let's call things what they are". html5 should be html5. css3 and javascript should be css3 and javascript. this is why things have names after all.
that said, i realized my efforts were futile when w3 themselves said that html5 should be a term used to encompass all these technologies. not that i disagree with mozilla on principle of course, but unless w3 has changed their mind again i think moz is incorrect here.
i can't find the source, but i trust i'm not recalling the article incorrectly as i was quite bothered by it (and hn's complacent response).
HTML5 seems to have become the term used for referring to the newer features in browsers. Is there a term that should be used to encompass HTML5, CSS3, Javascript (Websockets, history API etc.)?
well, if people are naturally lumping those items into a category, then it can be counterproductive to deny that category. I'm going to attend the google devfest talk titled "bleeding edge html5" today and the talk features the "web audio api".
[+] [-] scdc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untog|14 years ago|reply
http://www.w3.org/html/logo/
Check out badge 8 - it's CSS3 specifically. Who knows what the icon is, but still.
[+] [-] talmand|14 years ago|reply
For example, you could have a Javscript coder always having to explain that he uses "HTML5" technologies but is not well-versed in actual HTML5 markup, which may not be required. I've seen numerous job listings where the person writing the job description is obviously absolutely confused over what they need.
[+] [-] anm8tr|14 years ago|reply
But otherwise, what is going on here is that Mozilla is part of WHATWG, who is largely responsible for the success of HTML5. WC3 actually wanted to drop support for HTML (calling it done) and only within the last year decided to jump in the bandwagon and take credit. And then along the way, get things wrong - like this list of the Mozilla page.
I've always said, "to clients, it's ALL HTML5, but to developers, we should know the difference". But the WC3 is clouding that difference.
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
Geeks being who they are like to be pendantic and discuss the details ad nauseam. Gotta quit running into the weeds on the little things.
The terminology we're going to use is HTML5, and we understand it's a catch-all term. End of story. Next problem.
[+] [-] ryanto|14 years ago|reply
The problem is that people often want the latest and greatest technology. Geolocation is a good example of this. They think because chrome is an html5 browser they can have geolocation and often are confused when you try to explain why that feature won't always work. "But it's part of html5!" they say.
Instead of bundling everything under "HTML5" I wish we could just talk about the actual features.
[+] [-] bostonpete|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeryan|14 years ago|reply
Eventually gave up and now when people ask if an app is "HTML5" I just say "yes".
[+] [-] statictype|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] catshirt|14 years ago|reply
that said, i realized my efforts were futile when w3 themselves said that html5 should be a term used to encompass all these technologies. not that i disagree with mozilla on principle of course, but unless w3 has changed their mind again i think moz is incorrect here.
i can't find the source, but i trust i'm not recalling the article incorrectly as i was quite bothered by it (and hn's complacent response).
[+] [-] talmand|14 years ago|reply
According to Wikipedia the W3C admitted their mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#The_HTML5_logo
Plus, check the HTML5 FAQ: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html
[+] [-] samarudge|14 years ago|reply
Still I guess HTML5 is better than "Web 3.0" =/
[+] [-] stan_rogers|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnytee|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Too|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aufreak3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d0vs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnxsoft|14 years ago|reply
I've also attended Google DevFest recently, and they mentioned WebSockets as part of HTML5.
[+] [-] MostAwesomeDude|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cancelbubble|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ploxination|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]