I agree about the three options - and I think (3) would have been the best outcome - because whenever this logo is used, it will most probably be shown as relatively small badge.

For example - this blog (http://almaer.com/blog/) is listed as an example of the logo in action on the launch page.

I think this page is a good example of my point; at this size, the logo suffers from the '5-becoming-6' problem - it doesn't actually communicate its message successfully at the most basic level.

--

I've had a think about this in a bit more detail - and the more I think about it, the less impressed I am.

I think the whole concept should have been based around producing a mark that can identify whether a product supports HTML5 technologies.

I don't think the logo should have been produced to place on a site (or teeshirt) to show allegiance to the cause - I think it should have been created along the lines of the DVD, USB, HD or Blueray industry support logos.

An identity that helps promote HTML5 as a consumer technology - and shows a consumer at a glance, whether the product they are about to download or buy is capable enough to adhere to the upcoming spec.

But maybe that's what this is? Still, I'm a bit doubtful about whether it achieves these aims.