So there’s a logo for HTML5. Some prominent people don’t like it—especially Jeremy Keith.
In particular, they object to this HTML5 logo representing things that aren’t in the HTML5 specification: CSS3, SVG, WOFF, and so on. This represents an unacceptable muddying of the terminology from the W3C, the body that actually defines what is, and isn’t, HTML5.
No.
As I see it, there are three meanings of HTML5 floating about:
- The whole suite of web technologies currently being embraced by modern browsers,
- the subset of the above explicitly covered by the HTML5 specification (markup, web forms, and an array of new JavaScript APIs), or
- the further subset of the above, that constitutes actual HTML markup.
To the web-designers and developers, the most useful definition is probably #3 — and it’s in this sense that Keith uses it, for example, in his excellent HTML5 for Web Designers. To the general public, #1 is the only definition that will even make sense. To everyone not concerned with actually writing the specification, #2 is entirely irrelevant. The W3C is just picking a definition to run with that is relevant to someone other than themselves.
So, going forward, what should we call the HTML5 markup? How about “HTML5 markup”?
