Technologies often called part of HTML5 that aren't | Hacker News Reader

Technologies often called part of HTML5 that aren't

developer.mozilla.org

121 pointsasto35 comments

So what if HTML5 doesn't technically include CSS3 and JavaScript. It's helpful to have a simple term for "the collection of web technologies that allow rich UI applications in browsers released ~2010." HTML5 fits the bill. Look at what the term "AJAX" did for AJAX, even if you weren't using XML.

I actually thought they'd changed the "marketing" definition so that it does include things like CSS3:

http://www.w3.org/html/logo/

Check out badge 8 - it's CSS3 specifically. Who knows what the icon is, but still.

It's a stylized '3'. It's the only HTML5 badge I can identify on sight.

I would have preferred something more like Web3.0 because HTML5 is one of the technologies being included in the broad term "HTML5". It's bound to lead to confusion and in many cases already has.

For example, you could have a Javscript coder always having to explain that he uses "HTML5" technologies but is not well-versed in actual HTML5 markup, which may not be required. I've seen numerous job listings where the person writing the job description is obviously absolutely confused over what they need.

When we talk about Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 we tend to be talking more about paradigms than any concrete technology. Web 2.0 is really about social web apps. The "HTML5" technologies are really about facilitating that paradigm, so I don't think talking about Web 3.0 really makes sense. Web 3.0 would be appropriate if we started to see the main activity on the Internet change to something new.

My memories of "Web2.0" began with the heavy use of AJAX and the design decisions that went with it. Such as creating websites that behaved as applications.

I'm not saying that Web3.0 is an appropriate term. I just would have preferred that a more general term was used to describe all the technologies as a whole. Referring to all of them by the name of one of them is a mistake. Especially since it seems that some are pushing the notion that HTML shouldn't have a version number to begin with.

I agree. HTML5 is a buzzword that gets companies excited about technology, and when that happens, I get paid.

But otherwise, what is going on here is that Mozilla is part of WHATWG, who is largely responsible for the success of HTML5. WC3 actually wanted to drop support for HTML (calling it done) and only within the last year decided to jump in the bandwagon and take credit. And then along the way, get things wrong - like this list of the Mozilla page.

I've always said, "to clients, it's ALL HTML5, but to developers, we should know the difference". But the WC3 is clouding that difference.

The rest of the world likes to keep things simple so we have this term HTML5 which means next generation web technology to most people, which is all they really have time for. They're running the world after all.

Geeks being who they are like to be pendantic and discuss the details ad nauseam. Gotta quit running into the weeds on the little things.

The terminology we're going to use is HTML5, and we understand it's a catch-all term. End of story. Next problem.

No, not at all. There is a spec for HTML5 and it is most certainly not 'next generation web technology'. It goes into great detail on a couple of specific features that browsers will aim to support.

The problem is that people often want the latest and greatest technology. Geolocation is a good example of this. They think because chrome is an html5 browser they can have geolocation and often are confused when you try to explain why that feature won't always work. "But it's part of html5!" they say.

Instead of bundling everything under "HTML5" I wish we could just talk about the actual features.

Because the lay-person that doesn't give two flips about how your website works, just wants to know if it's modern/exciting... cares?

"""Instead of bundling everything under "HTML5" I wish we could just talk about the actual features."""

We do. When we talk between us, tech people. Or in the special groups designing and implementing those actual features.

The fact that the world at large uses "HTML5" as an all inclusive term hasn't stopped anything from happening to the individual technologies.

I thought geeks only got pedantic when talking about legos... :-)

Do you mean LEGOs?

Don't you mean LEGO?

LEGO bricks* actually :P

We do a lot of rich internet apps which are heavy HTML/JS and get asked a lot "Are you using HTML5" and I'd go down this whole spiel about "well really we like the CSS3 features" and "a lot of what we do isn't HTML5 its just HTML4 and Javascript" or "Maybe we try to use local storage but have to fall back to standard cookies, and backend persistence for legacy browsers".

Eventually gave up and now when people ask if an app is "HTML5" I just say "yes".

My self-imposed rule is if the page's doctype is <!DOCTYPE html> then I say it's HTML5 (regardless of what other technologies I actually use - it could just be a static page for all I care).

This is really the heart of HTML5 and the only important part of the whole deal.

how are we still talking about this? for over a year i was a proponent for "let's call things what they are". html5 should be html5. css3 and javascript should be css3 and javascript. this is why things have names after all.

that said, i realized my efforts were futile when w3 themselves said that html5 should be a term used to encompass all these technologies. not that i disagree with mozilla on principle of course, but unless w3 has changed their mind again i think moz is incorrect here.

i can't find the source, but i trust i'm not recalling the article incorrectly as i was quite bothered by it (and hn's complacent response).

Nope, disagree, you are wrong and Mozilla is right.

According to Wikipedia the W3C admitted their mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#The_HTML5_logo

Plus, check the HTML5 FAQ: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html

HTML5 seems to have become the term used for referring to the newer features in browsers. Is there a term that should be used to encompass HTML5, CSS3, Javascript (Websockets, history API etc.)?

Still I guess HTML5 is better than "Web 3.0" =/

The "WHATWG spec"? It's not pretty, but at least it's reasonably accurate.

how about 'post-IE (6) internet'

Until recently, WHATWG had labelled the combination "Web Applications 1.0". Now it's just "HTML" (no "5") and subtitled "Living Standard".

On this website http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ under technology and badge builder they seem to imply that some of these are part of it.

I remember the debate in the community that happened when they announced those logos. I'm on the side that it was a mistake to do so.

yes, it's abit ambiguous

They forgot SVG

The list is not meant to be extensive. But do you have any data that shows that SVG is confused with HTML5?

(http://www.w3.org/html/logo/)

under 3d and effects:

> Between SVG, Canvas, WebGL, and CSS3 3D features, you're sure to amaze your users with stunning visuals natively rendered in the browser.

well, if people are naturally lumping those items into a category, then it can be counterproductive to deny that category. I'm going to attend the google devfest talk titled "bleeding edge html5" today and the talk features the "web audio api".

In that case the title is wrong, but I hope it's informative all the same.

So is it any JS API that isn't manipulating an HTML(5) element?

If WebSockets are not part of HTML5 why are they under HTML5 at W3C http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/.

I've also attended Google DevFest recently, and they mentioned WebSockets as part of HTML5.

WebSockets are part of HyBi, an HTTP task force's efforts. They don't depend on HTML at all. They are also silly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com