Sites using HTML5 today.

by **shmuel** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:03 pm

I know I recently came across a site that had already transitioned to HTML5 (albeit with a few extra divs to keep it all kosher for the browsers) but now I can't remember for the life of me what website it was. I've googled and googled to find it and nothing. Can anyone help me? Maybe there are even more people doing this?

Thanks,
S

by **sfraser** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:56 am

http://waffle.wootest.net/ I found moments ago. I use <!DOCTYPE html> on my home page, http://www.elementary-group-standards.com; I haven't made time to correct significant inline content or embedded requirements on all of the other pages. I use HTML5 on all pages of http://www.menehune-foundry.com/ for testing.

by **sfraser** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:45 pm

And, this Forum is <!DOCTYPE HTML> as well as http://blog.whatwg.org/ (Word Press), The WHATWG Blog.

by **sfraser** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:57 am

Sam Ruby's http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/.

by **zcorpan** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:31 am

In what way is it useful to monitor sites that has switched to the HTML5 doctype? Isn't it more useful to look at HTML5 features that are being used (regardless of doctype)?

by **sfraser** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:48 am

It is useful for authors waiting to see

1. How many sites are HTML5.
2. Whose site is HTML5.
3. Does <!DOCTYPE html> work.

It's no different than when authors waited for XHTML 1.0 becoming popular. When it did, it did so because authors found that Zeldman et al switched from HTML 4.01.

You may want to see what features are used. That data would be very useful for test suites; No? I would be more curious to know what sites use HTML5 features that - actually - declare <!DOCTYPE html>. Or, are (X)HTML. How many sites use <canvas> that have XHTML 1.0/Strict declared?

Perhaps, The Editor could supply all of the above data.

by **zcorpan** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:13 pm

Well, I don't think the doctype is a useful measure about what a page is. This forum, for instance, is not remotely "HTML5" (doesn't use any new features and is not near conforming), yet uses the short doctype (mostly just to get out of quirks mode).

Anne's blog uses WF2 features yet has an HTML4 doctype. There are lots of canvas demos that don't use the HTML5 doctype. I'd consider those to be more "HTML5" than a page that uses the HTML5 doctype but no new features...

by **sfraser** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:00 am

I do not disagree. However, the majority of web authors do base decisions on DocType.

by **anne** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:39 pm

I'm not even sure the majority of web authors specifies one. Let alone that they would adhere to it when they do.

by **sfraser** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:25 am

It seems - from recent observation - that more author do specify a DocType. That doesn't mean they have copied-and-pasted it; or, chose one after research. And, No... no one seems to use XHTML as application/xhtml+xml. Nor, seem overly concerned with validation.

by **bfrohs** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:14 pm

Well, since we're on the subject of using HTML5, does anyone have experience with creating firefox extensions? If so, I'm sure others will agree, that it would be greatly appreciated to have an internal validation service to see if documents are (X)HTML 5 compliant (HTML Validator for Firefox for example).

by **mskinner** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:28 am

@bfrohs, you may want to take a look at the HTML Validator Extension (based on Tidy and OpenSP). It doesn't currently support HTML5/XHTML5, however the extension might/should be flexible enough to extend it.

http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/

Sites using HTML5 today.

Sites using HTML5 today.

Sites using HTML5 today

Sites using HTML5 today

Sites using HTML5 today

Sites using HTML5 today

Sites using HTML5 today

Sites using HTML5 today

RE: Firefox extension

Who is online

Who is online