5 ms·
Calling it an “HTML5 website” is a bit of an overreaction IMHO. Other than the DOCTYPE, there’s not much “HTML5” to it. It’s just good old HTML, JavaScript and
by mathias 16y ago
Calling it an “HTML5 website” is a bit of an overreaction IMHO.
Other than the DOCTYPE, there’s not much “HTML5” to it. It’s just good old HTML, JavaScript and CSS, wrapped together in a document that happens to use the HTML5 DOCTYPE.
- watty 16y agoIt's really depressing seeing HN use HTML5 as incorrectly as my managers...
- lwhi 16y agoI blame Steve Jobs; I honestly do. EDIT: I believe Steve Jobs is largely responsible for popularising the idea of HTML5 as a Flash replacement. He's also popularised the idea that HTML5 is technology that can be used now, when the situation is actually a lot more complicated. I think that without Steve's input, HTML5 wouldn't have reached the wider public's consciousness in the way it has - and there'd be far less misuse as a result.
- rmc 16y agoThe fact that the HN submission says "Gorgeous HTML5" is also evidence that this is aimed at Apple users.
- alnayyir 16y agoHype du jour. Great way to get front-paged. It goes in cycles on here.
- ugh 16y agoSigh. It’s not incorrect. Language doesn’t work that way.
- lwhi 16y agoUnfortunately, it does when language is used to denote specific technologies.
- ugh 16y agoNo, it doe not, even then. It’s unfortunately not that simple. HTML5 has acquired new meaning, its definition has changed.
- lwhi 16y agoHTML5 has acquired new meaning, its definition has changed That is categorically untrue. There is a W3C specification which defines exactly what HTML5 is (or more correctly will become). The specification is a proposal, but this still doesn't mean that the term 'HTML5' is able to acquire new meaning. This is because it's technical shorthand used to describe a group of technologies - and the group of technologies it represents can be specified precisely.
- ugh 16y agoThat’s not how it works. If most people use HTML5 to refer to all new and upcoming web technologies the meaning changes. One person using it that way is an error, nearly everyone using it that way changes the meaning. You can’t impose definitions top-down.
- lwhi 16y agoI know what you're trying to say - language is a fluid changing thing, which evolves. While I agree with this concept - I don't think misuse of technical terms changes the meaning of those terms. In this case, lack of education, misinformation and confusion are driving the misuse of the term. It won't change what HTML5 actually is, because we have an officially sanctioned definition.
- ugh 16y agoHTML5 has become a very relevant term outside of technical circles and there it refers to all upcoming web technologies and – pretty much – always has. I guess you will just have to life with the two different meanings in two different context. I don’t think it’s a problem, I quite like HTML5 as a catch-all term for upcoming web technologies.
- franck 16y agoTrue. It seems HTML5 is the new way of saying "Not using Flash".
- sushi 16y agoSpeaking of DOCTYPE, it seems there is no DOCTYPE on HN.
- kd5bjo 16y agoI've come around to accepting that anything conforming to the relevant standards can (and should) properly be called HTML5, even if it doesn't actually take advantage of anything that wasn't available in HTML4.
- andymism 16y agoI'm also tired of seeing HTML5 this and that (as it's mostly grossly misused to mean 'highly dynamic'), but this <!doctype html> is actually how you declare an HTML5 doctype. They're also using the semantic HTML5 elements header and footer. Reference: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/syntax.html#the-doctype http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/syntax.html#the-doctype http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/ http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/