What a non-sense complain this is, if THE DOCTYPE IS HTML5 , then IT IS HTML5 , end of the story fellows.
It’s up to you to use aside, article, etc…If HTML5 would absolutely REQUIRE you to use these new tags, and only these tags, then there would be something wrong with marketing the item as html5, but that’s not the case.
I personally don’t see what all the fuss is about either. The only reason I could imagine why authors would feel angry about this is because of a sense of elitism about using the new tags over those who don’t (because they don’t know how to). Like those using the doctype only are stealing back the advantage which the angry authors gained by learning and implementing the new tags.
I don’t buy the whole “buyer transparency” argument. I can’t imagine that buyers actually care, as long as you are not using out-dated tags. If buyers are properly informed about what HTML5 means, then it shouldn’t matter.
Yes, anyone can declare their site or template as HTML5 . BUT is it for the sole purpose of marketing = making those sites look up-to-date OR does the author really tries to evangelize the new technology by using it’s evolving basis?
So perhaps this dilemna is not about the law or consequences…
If you took the time to learn about the meanings of new tags and are happy to explore new possibilities, that differentiates you from the sloppy developer that just says is, but doesn’t do it.
Putting “HTML5” in the title of a template where the only thing “HTML5” about it is the doctype is pulling the wool over the buyers eyes. As an author I don’t really care, but as a veteran buyer I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.
Said my peace
It is also worth noting the changes in the way certain tags are allowed to function in HTML5 . For example, the anchor tag can now contain block type elements where in HTML4 this would be invalid. So advertising the template as HTML5 would be fine as it is actually HTML5 even though no HTML5 specific tags are used.
I guess this argument would become redundant once HTML5 is solidified and everyone forgets HTML4 existed
The real issue is the ambiguity of stating that an item is “HTML5” – is it meant as a statement regarding the document type only, or regarding the use of the latest features HTML has to offer?
Using the HTML5 doctype means the item is rendered with HTML5 standards – so to state that the product “is HTML5 ” in the description is accurate. I see no problem so far.
If the product’s title includes “HTML5”, that would indicate to me that HTML5 is a major feature, used significantly in the product – and for it to be a major feature, the item should make use of the new elements (header, article, section, aside, video, footer, form types, etc), attributes, and syntax from the HTML5 spec whenever possible – as well as use these elements appropriately.
So I see no problem with items that use no HTML5 elements, only the doctype, stating that they are “HTML5” in the product description – this is simply accurate, though I think it could use a disclaimer. For an item to include “HTML5” in the title, I expect the product to make use of HTML5 features where appropriate; if not, it seems a bit misleading – or at least out of alignment with the expectations it sets.
In the end, I think it is the buyer’s responsibility to inspect the product to whatever extent they can before purchasing; and it is the author’s responsibility to provide accurate product descriptions that appropriately set buyer expectations. Any author who deviates from that is going to end up with unhappy buyers.
anybody that would like to see that a template with no html5 tags wont even be validated as html4 by w3school? even if i put html4 or any other doctype at the beginning?
please end this useless conversation as it doesnt give anything to anybody
html5 = html5 html4 = html4, lets agree on this