3 ms·

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

by 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.
huckfinnaafb 15y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a site can't "be" HTML5. It can use technologies that require browsers which have implemented it from the HTML5 draft, but there is not a watershed to it. I think the whole marketing fiasco has really warped the perception of what it means to use HTML5. Implemented HTML5 tech should be considered more of a supplemental library than a platform or language.

by nikcub 15y ago

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.

huckfinnaafb 15y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a site can't "be" HTML5. It can use technologies that require browsers which have implemented it from the HTML5 draft, but there is not a watershed to it. I think the whole marketing fiasco has really warped the perception of what it means to use HTML5. Implemented HTML5 tech should be considered more of a supplemental library than a platform or language.