6 ms·

Technologies often called part of HTML5 that aren't

121 points by asto 15y ago

Too 15y ago
They forgot SVG
- csomar 15y ago
  The list is not meant to be extensive. But do you have any data that shows that SVG is confused with HTML5?
  - DanBC 15y ago
    (http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/) under 3d and effects: > Between SVG, Canvas, WebGL, and CSS3 3D features, you're sure to amaze your users with stunning visuals natively rendered in the browser.
ploxination 15y ago
How can they claim that Faster JavaScript is not part of html5?
samarudge 15y ago
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.)? Still I guess HTML5 is better than "Web 3.0" =/
- icebraining 15y ago
  The "WHATWG spec"? It's not pretty, but at least it's reasonably accurate.
  - Achshar 15y ago
    how about 'post-IE (6) internet'
- stan_rogers 15y ago
  Until recently, WHATWG had labelled the combination "Web Applications 1.0". Now it's just "HTML" (no "5") and subtitled "Living Standard".
johnnytee 15y ago
On this website http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ under technology and badge builder they seem to imply that some of these are part of it.
- talmand 15y ago
  I remember the debate in the community that happened when they announced those logos. I'm on the side that it was a mistake to do so.
  - johnnytee 15y ago
    yes, it's abit ambiguous
scdc 15y ago
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.
- untog 15y ago
  I actually thought they'd changed the "marketing" definition so that it does include things like CSS3: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ Check out badge 8 - it's CSS3 specifically. Who knows what the icon is, but still.
  - jamesgeck0 15y ago
    It's a stylized '3'. It's the only HTML5 badge I can identify on sight.
- talmand 15y ago
  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.
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    When we talk about Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 we tend to be talking more about paradigms than any concrete technology. Web 2.0 is really about social web apps. The "HTML5" technologies are really about facilitating that paradigm, so I don't think talking about Web 3.0 really makes sense. Web 3.0 would be appropriate if we started to see the main activity on the Internet change to something new.
    - 15y ago
d0vs 15y ago
So is it any JS API that isn't manipulating an HTML(5) element?
cnxsoft 15y ago
If WebSockets are not part of HTML5 why are they under HTML5 at W3C http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/. I've also attended Google DevFest recently, and they mentioned WebSockets as part of HTML5.
- MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
  WebSockets are part of HyBi, an HTTP task force's efforts. They don't depend on HTML at all. They are also silly.
cancelbubble 15y ago
Some of these used to be lumped into "HTML5" but then moved out into their own spec so they wouldn't hold up HTML5. Geolocation, Web Workers, Web Sockets, XHR2, Selectors API are all in a HTML5 book I have.
melling 15y ago
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.
- ryanto 15y ago
  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.
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    Because the lay-person that doesn't give two flips about how your website works, just wants to know if it's modern/exciting... cares?
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """Instead of bundling everything under "HTML5" I wish we could just talk about the actual features.""" We do. When we talk between us, tech people. Or in the special groups designing and implementing those actual features. The fact that the world at large uses "HTML5" as an all inclusive term hasn't stopped anything from happening to the individual technologies.
- bostonpete 15y ago
  I thought geeks only got pedantic when talking about legos... :-)
mikeryan 15y ago
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".
- statictype 15y ago
  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).
  - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
    This is really the heart of HTML5 and the only important part of the whole deal.
catshirt 15y ago
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).
- talmand 15y ago
  Nope, disagree, you are wrong and Mozilla is right. According to Wikipedia the W3C admitted their mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#The_HTML5_logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#The_HTML5_logo Plus, check the HTML5 FAQ: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html
aufreak3 15y ago
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".
- talmand 15y ago
  In that case the title is wrong, but I hope it's informative all the same.

121 points by asto 15y ago

Too 15y ago

They forgot SVG

csomar 15y ago
The list is not meant to be extensive. But do you have any data that shows that SVG is confused with HTML5?
- DanBC 15y ago
  (http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/) under 3d and effects: > Between SVG, Canvas, WebGL, and CSS3 3D features, you're sure to amaze your users with stunning visuals natively rendered in the browser.

ploxination 15y ago

How can they claim that Faster JavaScript is not part of html5?

samarudge 15y ago

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.)? Still I guess HTML5 is better than "Web 3.0" =/

icebraining 15y ago
The "WHATWG spec"? It's not pretty, but at least it's reasonably accurate.
- Achshar 15y ago
  how about 'post-IE (6) internet'
stan_rogers 15y ago
Until recently, WHATWG had labelled the combination "Web Applications 1.0". Now it's just "HTML" (no "5") and subtitled "Living Standard".

johnnytee 15y ago

On this website http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ under technology and badge builder they seem to imply that some of these are part of it.

talmand 15y ago
I remember the debate in the community that happened when they announced those logos. I'm on the side that it was a mistake to do so.
- johnnytee 15y ago
  yes, it's abit ambiguous

scdc 15y ago

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.

untog 15y ago
I actually thought they'd changed the "marketing" definition so that it does include things like CSS3: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ Check out badge 8 - it's CSS3 specifically. Who knows what the icon is, but still.
- jamesgeck0 15y ago
  It's a stylized '3'. It's the only HTML5 badge I can identify on sight.
talmand 15y ago
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.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  When we talk about Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 we tend to be talking more about paradigms than any concrete technology. Web 2.0 is really about social web apps. The "HTML5" technologies are really about facilitating that paradigm, so I don't think talking about Web 3.0 really makes sense. Web 3.0 would be appropriate if we started to see the main activity on the Internet change to something new.
  - 15y ago

d0vs 15y ago

So is it any JS API that isn't manipulating an HTML(5) element?

cnxsoft 15y ago

If WebSockets are not part of HTML5 why are they under HTML5 at W3C http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/. I've also attended Google DevFest recently, and they mentioned WebSockets as part of HTML5.

MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
WebSockets are part of HyBi, an HTTP task force's efforts. They don't depend on HTML at all. They are also silly.

cancelbubble 15y ago

Some of these used to be lumped into "HTML5" but then moved out into their own spec so they wouldn't hold up HTML5. Geolocation, Web Workers, Web Sockets, XHR2, Selectors API are all in a HTML5 book I have.

melling 15y ago

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.

ryanto 15y ago
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.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  Because the lay-person that doesn't give two flips about how your website works, just wants to know if it's modern/exciting... cares?
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Instead of bundling everything under "HTML5" I wish we could just talk about the actual features.""" We do. When we talk between us, tech people. Or in the special groups designing and implementing those actual features. The fact that the world at large uses "HTML5" as an all inclusive term hasn't stopped anything from happening to the individual technologies.
bostonpete 15y ago
I thought geeks only got pedantic when talking about legos... :-)

mikeryan 15y ago

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".

statictype 15y ago
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).
- MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
  This is really the heart of HTML5 and the only important part of the whole deal.

catshirt 15y ago

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).

talmand 15y ago
Nope, disagree, you are wrong and Mozilla is right. According to Wikipedia the W3C admitted their mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#The_HTML5_logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#The_HTML5_logo Plus, check the HTML5 FAQ: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html

aufreak3 15y ago

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".

talmand 15y ago
In that case the title is wrong, but I hope it's informative all the same.