Talk:HTML 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Requested move

From HTML5 to HTML 5 as in W3C documents. Armando82 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. Support - Armando82 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this one slipped through the net, but better late than never. This article has been renamed from HTML5 to HTML 5 as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The W3C documents use "HTML5". "HTML 5" is the spec, "HTML5" is the language (or the text/html serialization). This page should be titled "HTML5". Zcorpan 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Zcorpan is right. The WHATWG community refers to the language and its text/html serialization as "HTML5" without the space. The title of the specification is "HTML 5" with the space. Hsivonen (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this page makes me think that HTML 5 is not the same as XHTML 5. I was under the impression that XHTML5 referred to the same thing (i.e. they were synonomous).

HTML 5 will have its X(HTML) 5 sister, but XHTML 2 is totally different beast: http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2/ -- 194.251.240.116 11:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
XHTML5 is what you get when an HTML5 document is served as XML instead of HTML. Browsers will interpret XHTML5 and HTML5 documents differently, for example in XHTML it is possible to mix other types of XML content such as SVG and MATHML into the document. --jacobolus (t) 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTML 5 is a project??

Now the page HTML 5 is marked {{future product}}, but isn't HTML 5 now a project, later to become a web standard? (or possibly not). Then if the article is written like HTML 5 being a project, it only partially treats future. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't future software either. --Alexc3 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The section on the media codec controversy is about as POV as it could possibly be; yes, there's controversy, but the presentation in this article is neither neutral nor balanced. Ubernostrum (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking at it carefully, here's what needs to be fixed:

  • The citations are entirely in favor of the "outrage" position, with no mention of, for example, the WHATWG's response or the discussion on the WHATWG mailing list.
  • The use of the phrase "led to disappointment among bloggers" is, or borders on, weasel words.
  • There is almost no actual substance to the section; a proper treatment would involve, at the very least, an explanation of the actual issue, preferably without cherry-picking of loaded quotes from the "outraged" sources.

I don't have time to deal with this tonight, but if no-one else gets to it I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Ubernostrum (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article in order to address the above three concerns and have removed the POV notice. If anyone should feel that the third point, about requiring further explanation of the actual issue, still needs addressing, feel free to edit it further or re-apply the POV notice mmj (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Rewrote it. I tried to be as factual as possible. Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, a lot of weight is on the codec issue, while the rest of the article (the majority of it) is pretty vague - it just lists the new APIs et al. Just that is hardly interesting for readers (assume a readership not entirely familiar with the subject). A discussion on what scenarios these features and APIs enable would be a lot more interesting than reading the political debate over codecs. The entire controversy can be summed up in a more concise manner. --soum talk 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article needs a criticism section

Some groups and individuals are pretty anti-html5. I wonder if there is concesus for adding a criticism section. I could do some research to see how notable the criticism is. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

If it's possible to be against HTML 5, I say go ahead! Still, I think it would be best to elaborate on the article proper first; it's rather short considering the complexity of the issue. Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)