3 ms·

Heh, HTML5. http://i.v3n.us/ASQf http://i.v3n.us/ASQf Guys, this is just a non-Flash version. But I guess blasting it out there with the HTML5 logo gets a lot m

Heh, HTML5. http://i.v3n.us/ASQf http://i.v3n.us/ASQf Guys, this is just a non-Flash version. But I guess blasting it out there with the HTML5 logo gets a lot more attention, at the cost of confusing non-techies about what HTML5 really is. And trust me, this is a discussion I have ad nauseam with clients. Regardless, I appreciate the move Slideshare.

notatoad 15y ago
i've never thought of myself as a non-techie, but apparently i am confused about what HTML5 is as well. i was under the impression it meant rich web apps built with standard compliant technologies. there's a lot of HTML4 in HTML5, it's not exclusive to the few new elements.
- ortatherox 15y ago
  Yeah, they may be using the XHTML metatag and relying of divs, but that doesn't mean they're not using some more modern tech to get it working. CSS3 fonts are used in the slides for example. HTML5 is pretty much an umbrella term now and I think this fits neatly into that
  - shadowfiend 15y ago
    HTML5 is definitely an umbrella term, and I think harping on its usage because no new elements are being used or whatever is a bit silly. That said, CSS fonts were only recently moved to CSS3. For the longest time, they were in CSS2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/fonts.html#font-descriptions http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/fonts.html#font-... ). Yeah, I know, the comment boils down to `let's not be pedantic about this, but this thing over here, this let's be pedantic about'. Sorry :) I've always thought it interesting that font-face is a much older technology that took a long time to make it into non-IE browsers (granted, IE only supported the EOT font format).
nikcub 15y ago
I wondered the other day who owns the html5 trademark and the logo. It should only be licensed to sites that are actually html5 - same for browsers. It shouldn't be hard to come up with some criteria for both apps and browsers as to what is html5. this definitely isn't, since the markup can't be parsed and made sense of as to what the document structure is
- alanh 15y ago
  You say “should” but I wonder “why?” If the goal isn’t to certify HTML5-ness so much as increase buzz about pure-web technology – and the W3C has, I believe, confirmed the latter to be the goal of the badge/logo — then no one is harmed by the status quo and a licensing scheme would be counter-productive.
  - noduerme 15y ago
    It's worse than that. The goal is to create buzz for the sake of creating buzz... the problem with marketers is that they can only hold one or two buzz-words in their head at a time, and to them it's all "what those crazy hip programmers are working on in our basement, while I'm up here looking at chicks out the window". A lot of books will be sold about HTML5 and a lot of dumb sites will claim to be using it, and pretty soon when everyone's incredibly annoyed by all the HTML5 junk content out there, the marketers will realize no one actually gave a shit in the first place, find a new buzzword, and the world will move on. I bet if Adobe changed the name of Flash 11 tomorrow to "HTML6", the marketers would go crazy for it. So would all the idiots who have no idea how web is made, but come out in armies anytime HTML5 comes up.
    - alanh 15y ago
      > I bet if Adobe changed the name of Flash 11 tomorrow to "HTML6", the marketers would go crazy for it. Oh $deity, please don’t suggest that to Adobe marketing. > So would all the idiots who have no idea how web is made, but come out in armies anytime HTML5 comes up. Not sure who these supposed idiots are or where I can see them.
- 15y ago
yuhong 15y ago
To be honest, how many web designers (let along the average user) can tell the difference between HTML4, CSS2, HTML5, CSS3, etc... without using view source?

notatoad 15y ago

i've never thought of myself as a non-techie, but apparently i am confused about what HTML5 is as well. i was under the impression it meant rich web apps built with standard compliant technologies. there's a lot of HTML4 in HTML5, it's not exclusive to the few new elements.

ortatherox 15y ago
Yeah, they may be using the XHTML metatag and relying of divs, but that doesn't mean they're not using some more modern tech to get it working. CSS3 fonts are used in the slides for example. HTML5 is pretty much an umbrella term now and I think this fits neatly into that
- shadowfiend 15y ago
  HTML5 is definitely an umbrella term, and I think harping on its usage because no new elements are being used or whatever is a bit silly. That said, CSS fonts were only recently moved to CSS3. For the longest time, they were in CSS2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/fonts.html#font-descriptions http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/fonts.html#font-... ). Yeah, I know, the comment boils down to `let's not be pedantic about this, but this thing over here, this let's be pedantic about'. Sorry :) I've always thought it interesting that font-face is a much older technology that took a long time to make it into non-IE browsers (granted, IE only supported the EOT font format).

nikcub 15y ago

I wondered the other day who owns the html5 trademark and the logo. It should only be licensed to sites that are actually html5 - same for browsers. It shouldn't be hard to come up with some criteria for both apps and browsers as to what is html5. this definitely isn't, since the markup can't be parsed and made sense of as to what the document structure is

alanh 15y ago
You say “should” but I wonder “why?” If the goal isn’t to certify HTML5-ness so much as increase buzz about pure-web technology – and the W3C has, I believe, confirmed the latter to be the goal of the badge/logo — then no one is harmed by the status quo and a licensing scheme would be counter-productive.
- noduerme 15y ago
  It's worse than that. The goal is to create buzz for the sake of creating buzz... the problem with marketers is that they can only hold one or two buzz-words in their head at a time, and to them it's all "what those crazy hip programmers are working on in our basement, while I'm up here looking at chicks out the window". A lot of books will be sold about HTML5 and a lot of dumb sites will claim to be using it, and pretty soon when everyone's incredibly annoyed by all the HTML5 junk content out there, the marketers will realize no one actually gave a shit in the first place, find a new buzzword, and the world will move on. I bet if Adobe changed the name of Flash 11 tomorrow to "HTML6", the marketers would go crazy for it. So would all the idiots who have no idea how web is made, but come out in armies anytime HTML5 comes up.
  - alanh 15y ago
    > I bet if Adobe changed the name of Flash 11 tomorrow to "HTML6", the marketers would go crazy for it. Oh $deity, please don’t suggest that to Adobe marketing. > So would all the idiots who have no idea how web is made, but come out in armies anytime HTML5 comes up. Not sure who these supposed idiots are or where I can see them.
15y ago

yuhong 15y ago

To be honest, how many web designers (let along the average user) can tell the difference between HTML4, CSS2, HTML5, CSS3, etc... without using view source?