<i>...until then, officials say Flash and Silverlight are still going to remain approved and viable web technologies.</i><p>Who are these officials that approve of Flash and Silverlight as web technologies superior to HTML5? I've never heard of a Flash working group at the W3C. The closest I found is someone asking for W3C involvement in 2008:<p><a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/311802/w3c-involvement-in-flash-silverlight" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/311802/w3c-involvement-in...</a>
This is really awful journalism. Read a rebuttal from “HTML5 evangelist” here: <a href="http://remy.tumblr.com/post/1261575750/hold-off-on-deploying-html5-in-websites" rel="nofollow">http://remy.tumblr.com/post/1261575750/hold-off-on-deploying...</a>
Seriously!?<p>The articles cites an "official" of the W3C and not the name of a person. Was it someone of important such as Ian Hickson or was it just some bureaucrat or intern?<p>Who made these statements matters greatly and defines the line between news and non-news. This is complete non-news unless it was a person highly involved with defining or implementing the spec.<p>The fact that the author cited Silverlight smells very fishy to me.<p>This title and the entire article is just pure unadulterated linkbait.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the unnamed official, I have to admit that HTML5 feels a little like HTML3 to me -- it's following up a lean markup language (HTML2, HTML 4/XHTML 1.0) which was explicitly defined as an application of a well-defined general purpose language (SGML, XML), with a new version which is not so defined, and which contains a bunch of features which everyone wants right now, but which feel a little shoe-horned into the new standard (anyone remember HTML 3 Math mode?).<p>I suspect HTML 6 will be a lot more interesting, being the same sort of orthogonalization of the parts of HTML5 which actually got implemented by browsers that HTML 4 was for the mess that was HTML 3...