Add a disclaimer about html5please

[Raynos]

HTML5 for me has the same stupidly broad meaning as "web 2.0" does. I see "HTML5" as all recent technologies that browsers use.

When I mean the actual W3C HTML5 spec I'll state so explicitly. I tend to use WHATWG HTML anyway, and even then when I reference the actual HTML spec I tend to say WHATWG HTML to identity I'm talking about the specification and not about the HTML language in general.

[miketaylr]

Could you please add a disclaimer to the word "shiny"? I have a matte screen and none of this stuff actually shines. 💔

[beverloo]

Practical usage outweights theoretical ant-fucking. While the term HTML5 indeed is incorrect to use as an umbrella term for all these technologies, the ship has sailed and we're not going to stop it.

We may get a new chance to do this the right way with HTML.next, although the rich history of names (including "DHTML", "AJAX" etcetera) for Web based paradigms shows that something will be invented either way. That discussion is, however, entirely out of scope here.

No disclaimer needed.

[iandevlin]

I don't think that HTML5 should be used as an umbrella term for all new web technologies. I don't think that backing this term to encompass everything and anything that's relatively new to the web is helpful.

There are a number of things that were part of the HTML5 specification and no longer are which are almost acceptable to call HTML5 (e.g. the canvas API), but others which were never part of it (e.g. Geolocation) shouldn't be. HTML 4.01 doesn't include CSS2.1 so I really can't see the logic in lumping CSS3 under the term HTML5.

Just because people are continuing to make this mistake isn't a reason to not try and correct it. Many of us were fed up with Web 2.0 being used to mean many unrelated things and here we are again and doing nothing to attempt to correct it.

As for the specification being a living standard, that's only the WHATWG version, whereas the W3C one is more rigid and structured (as I'm sure you're aware).

I think the disclaimer is needed, to indicate to people that the term HTML5 is being used loosely here and that not everything mentioned is strictly HTML5.

[yatil]

This gets so confused all the time. „Use HTML5 to animate transition the color of the link.“ is something that I hear regularly. It blurs the line between semantic and presentation. I don’t think it makes sense to use HTML5 as an umbrella term on a web site that is actually used to educate. One should be more precise if one wants to teach people. At least the page title should say HTML5 (and related technologies), please!

[aardrian]

I feel the ship has sailed when trying to communicate this point to the general public, tech writers, bosses, clients, and small children up the street. However, since the site is aimed at developers I think it does a disservice to not remind them that HTML5 means a very particular specification, and that it makes it easier in the future to cite new specifications that will be supported on the site (as they come up), but are otherwise distinct. For those who do know better (me, a couple folks above), it just looks like the site got it wrong and doesn't understand the difference itself.

If we as technical professionals cede the meaning of HTML5 when speaking to other technical professionals, we are falling prey to marketing speak that has no place in discussions about specific technical matters.

[addyosmani]

I'm with @beverloo on this one. A disclaimer like this seems unnecessary.