Calling it an “HTML5 website” is a bit of an overreaction IMHO.
Other than the DOCTYPE, there’s not much “HTML5” to it. It’s just good old HTML, JavaScript and CSS, wrapped together in a document that happens to use the HTML5 DOCTYPE.
Other than the DOCTYPE, there’s not much “HTML5” to it. It’s just good old HTML, JavaScript and CSS, wrapped together in a document that happens to use the HTML5 DOCTYPE.
EDIT: I believe Steve Jobs is largely responsible for popularising the idea of HTML5 as a Flash replacement. He's also popularised the idea that HTML5 is technology that can be used now, when the situation is actually a lot more complicated. I think that without Steve's input, HTML5 wouldn't have reached the wider public's consciousness in the way it has - and there'd be far less misuse as a result.
That is categorically untrue. There is a W3C specification which defines exactly what HTML5 is (or more correctly will become).
The specification is a proposal, but this still doesn't mean that the term 'HTML5' is able to acquire new meaning.
This is because it's technical shorthand used to describe a group of technologies - and the group of technologies it represents can be specified precisely.
If most people use HTML5 to refer to all new and upcoming web technologies the meaning changes. One person using it that way is an error, nearly everyone using it that way changes the meaning. You can’t impose definitions top-down.
While I agree with this concept - I don't think misuse of technical terms changes the meaning of those terms.
In this case, lack of education, misinformation and confusion are driving the misuse of the term. It won't change what HTML5 actually is, because we have an officially sanctioned definition.
HTML5 hasn't always referred to all upcoming web technologies. It's misuse is recent - and I think Steve Jobs has encouraged the change.
I find being asked for an 'HTML5' website problematic; a lot of clients use the term simply because they understand it's a buzz word - and don't actually know what they're asking for.
I think we'll have to disagree.
It goes in cycles on here.
<!doctype html>
Reference: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/syntax.html#the-doctype http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/