Hacker News Reader

Comment by scdc | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com