Months ago I concluded that “HTML5” means whatever you want it to mean. This week, Jeffrey Zeldman and Jeff Croft took up the discussion, with Tantek Çelik and Bruce Lawson commenting.
Tantek Çelik said:
However, [the test site HTML5test.com] has one very big problem.
It tests things that it claims or implies are HTML5 (or conflates them as such) that are not actually part of HTML5.
Bruce Lawson said:
And what really makes my old-timers’ blood boil is people calling CSS3 or patented Apple CSS-extensions HTML5. The work of the Web Standards Project was incredibly successful in making people aware the structure and style are different. There’s an even greater separation in HTML5.
Jeff Croft said:
Sometimes we just need a word to rally behind. And put in job descriptions. And claim we “support” (another word that is mostly meaningless). It’s a language thing and a human psychology thing.
Needless to say, I agree with Jeff Croft here. There are several points that merit our attention:
-webkit-transformand Web Workers belong in different layers.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t be bothered to once again rise to righteous fury about minor semantic points. Explaining the separation of structure, presentation, and behaviour was very important in its day (hell, I was the first to discuss separation of structure and behaviour back in 2004), but the concept was accepted by the web development community long ago, and I don’t see the use “HTML5” as a broad term contributing to its decline.
And I don’t care whether something is in a document called “HTML5” or not. What matters is what the browsers support, provided they communicate with W3C in the process. (And everybody is very serious about that nowadays. Whatever else happens, we won’t slip back into a Browser War. That danger has gone forever.)
But it seems one more round of pointless semantic purity discussions is called for, and many will rise to the occasion. Not me, though.
Let’s move on, shall we?
Upcoming speaking gigs:
Comments are closed.