Comments on: The Truth Behind HTML5′s New Logo Fiasco

By: shepazu

shepazu — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:44:41 +0000

Bobbie, when you are advertising “the truth” about something, you would do well to know the truth first. You clearly don’t. Your opinions and conjectures are interesting (though I don’t agree with them), but please advertise them as such and let them stand on their own merits.

I was involved in the process of launching this logo, so I’m in a position to know “the truth”. If you want to report on facts rather than guesswork and pop psychology, you can easily get in touch with someone from W3C.

By: Web round up #13: What people are saying about the new HTML5 logo | Mayfield Digital Blog

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:10:29 +0000

[...] the lines between separate technologies that have already become intertwingled in media reports.GigaOM:So what’s the problem? Well, it’s not particularly because of the way it looks (it doesn’t [...]

By: Bradley

Bradley — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:29:55 +0000

OMG ppl, really who in the F cares about this? It makes absolutely zero difference in anyones daily life in the real world, good lord.

By: Jürgen Messing

Jürgen Messing — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:03:39 +0000

Sorry. I included a doctype. Some cool security technology on this blog removed it.

By: Jürgen Messing

Jürgen Messing — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:01:26 +0000

I really like this post. There is just HTML. Look at this:

You must be right :)

By: Jürgen Messing

Jürgen Messing — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:55:00 +0000

Did I really read the phrase “HTML5 fiasco” in post on GigaOm? Cleaning my glasses. Hu, still there. Must be Web World is in peril!

But wait. Who uses the technology under the HTML5 umbrella already in depth? For example, when it comes to CSS3, what about that text and box shadows look different in Firefox and Safari and Chrome, why Firefox interprets the new CSS box model different than Webkit, transitions don’t fall back seamlessly in legacy browsers when using some sort of this “transitionEnd” event and the list goes on.

It’s time that the HTML5 talk stops and we execute it on a large base day by day. Then we will talk about real issues. As we always have done.

By: Prolescum

Prolescum — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:54:52 +0000

@Txemi

“If you want to do a workshop on pure HTML5, you call it “HTML5 Mark-up language Workshop” and everybody will understand too.”

That would make the acronym redundant.

By: Hamranhansenhansen

Hamranhansenhansen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:18:56 +0000

Except we want customers to ask for HTML5, and they are doing so because what they have been given in the past is MSHTML/FlashPlayer that broke as soon as you used anything other than a Windows PC on the supposedly device-independent Web. So any Web developer who is on a high horse about standards should notice they are sitting on a donkey.

And the W3C will be in the doghouse over XHTML for at least another 10 years. They have a lot to live down.

By: Hamranhansenhansen

Hamranhansenhansen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:14:48 +0000

To me, it looks like it is from an 8-bit 1980′s video game. There should be a blocky knight holding that shield.

By: Hamranhansenhansen

Hamranhansenhansen — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:12:59 +0000

Jeremy Keith is my Web development mentor (“DOM Scripting” is the single best book on JavaScript ever written, and easily in the top 10 Web development books of all time) but I believe this logo is needed for the same reason there is a DVD logo and a CD logo. The consumer is meant to match the DVD logo on both content and players and have confidence they will work together. The Web is for consumers now, not techies, and we need to encourage the “just works” of other consumer technologies. From the consumer perspective, they should be assured that HTML5 content plays in HTML5 browsers. It would have been nice if the logo was a little more subtle, though, again like the DVD and CD logos.

I believe it is correct to combine HTML, CSS, and JavaScript into “HTML5″ because CSS and JavaScript are not optional anymore, they are the one and only styling and scripting for HTML, and with all 3 you have complete control of the DOM. It is a shame to hear Web developers talk about “pure HTML/CSS” like a horse’s ass. That is just laziness and a misunderstanding of what JavaScript is for. (Hint: read “DOM Scripting”.)

The funny thing is, this logo arrives just as the HTML5 moniker itself is falling out of favor. Nobody is interested in HTML 4 anymore, it is like recommending AOL, and when we say “HTML” it is taken to mean HTML5, same as “Mac OS” means “Mac OS X” and “TV” means “HDTV”. The 5 was only important when there were 2 types of HTML. Now that there is just HTML5 it is “HTML”.