And trust me, this is a discussion I have ad nauseam with clients.
Regardless, I appreciate the move Slideshare.
HTML5 is pretty much an umbrella term now and I think this fits neatly into that
That said, CSS fonts were only recently moved to CSS3. For the longest time, they were in CSS2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/fonts.html#font-... ).
Yeah, I know, the comment boils down to `let's not be pedantic about this, but this thing over here, this let's be pedantic about'. Sorry :) I've always thought it interesting that font-face is a much older technology that took a long time to make it into non-IE browsers (granted, IE only supported the EOT font format).
It shouldn't be hard to come up with some criteria for both apps and browsers as to what is html5.
this definitely isn't, since the markup can't be parsed and made sense of as to what the document structure is
If the goal isn’t to certify HTML5-ness so much as increase buzz about pure-web technology – and the W3C has, I believe, confirmed the latter to be the goal of the badge/logo — then no one is harmed by the status quo and a licensing scheme would be counter-productive.
I bet if Adobe changed the name of Flash 11 tomorrow to "HTML6", the marketers would go crazy for it. So would all the idiots who have no idea how web is made, but come out in armies anytime HTML5 comes up.
Oh $deity, please don’t suggest that to Adobe marketing.
> So would all the idiots who have no idea how web is made, but come out in armies anytime HTML5 comes up.
Not sure who these supposed idiots are or where I can see them.
I think the whole marketing fiasco has really warped the perception of what it means to use HTML5. Implemented HTML5 tech should be considered more of a supplemental library than a platform or language.