HTML5 is now "HTML"

[JAB Creations]

http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

Seriously, what is wrong with the WHATWG? This marketing nonsense needs to stop.

[freeTinker]

And I just had to perjure myself when signing-up by saying,"I am only going to post messages about HTML5"!!!

[BlueBoden]

It dose not, in fact, if you think about it, and carefully read why this was done.

Hopefully this will serve to eliminate confusion, as well as faster adaptation and development of the standards.

Hopefully we will see the same happen to CSS eventually.

[JAB Creations]

BlueBoden, your book has removed all chapter and page numbers.

BlueBoden, go to chapter.

No, none of their "logic" has any value, it's a marketing move.

[BlueBoden]

There are several reasons as to why you would have a living standard, rather then fixed snapshots. I'd might add that you can still chose to follow the W3C snapshot, i wouldn't recommend it though.

And the "chapters" as you put it, has not been removed. You are still able to look up individual elements and attributes as you please.

HTML will also include information about elements and attributes from older versions, so your argument has been blown to bits right there.

[JAB Creations]

I personally don't care about W3C versus WHATWG politics however this is clearly a marketing and political stunt.

Saying HTML5 defines HTML is incorrect just as saying XHTML defines XML is incorrect. HTML5 defines only it's version of HTML, not HTML as a whole.

[BlueBoden]

Marketing stunt or not, it solves some fundamental problems of which the whole standardization process have suffered, and more accurately reflects reality.

And on the point of marketing stunt, what exactly where you expecting the WHATWG to gain? HTML is a open standard.

I fully support this move.

Version numbers call for a complete review, just to remove single elements, or apply some minor changes. This is a long and tedious, not to mention unnecessary process.

Besides, you can in a sense, still look at the individual sections of the specification, as a sort of reference point.

[JAB Creations]

WHATWG is working on HTML5, the fifth version of HTML.

HTML5 is HTML.

HTML is not HTML5.

HTML is not defined exclusively as the fifth version of HTML as defined by WHATWG.

What exactly do you support? People saying, "I use HTML" to imply that they use HTML5 without saying they use HTML5?

One might as well say that the Ford 2013 is now called "car" and that anyone not driving the Ford 2013 is not driving a car. It completely lacks logic.

[BlueBoden]

Nope it doesn't. And I'm honestly tired of speaking with you, so good bye.

[zcorpan]

And I just had to perjure myself when signing-up by saying,"I am only going to post messages about HTML5"!!!

Heh. I'll email Hixie to see if he can disable that antispam plugin; I'm not convinced it's helping against spam anyway.

BTW I've killed the 5 from the name of these forums.

[Xacto01]

Marketing stunt or not, it solves some fundamental problems of which the whole standardization process have suffered, and more accurately reflects reality.

And on the point of marketing stunt, what exactly where you expecting the WHATWG to gain? HTML is a open standard.

I fully support this move.

Version numbers call for a complete review, just to remove single elements, or apply some minor changes. This is a long and tedious, not to mention unnecessary process.

Besides, you can in a sense, still look at the individual sections of the specification, as a sort of reference point.

I agree with this. HTML5 itself encompasses too many sub versions and compatibilities, and should be generalized to keep the whole set of technologies from being categorized within one version.