Talk:HTML5/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

W3C suggests that most authors use the HTML syntax, rather than the XHTML

In the xhtml article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xhtml#Overview, in section Overview, last paragraph, it says:

" Of the two serializations, the W3C suggests that most authors use the HTML syntax, rather than the XHTML syntax.[4] ".

I think there should be a mention of this in this article too, together with a reason for why they recommended html5 over xhtml5.

Velle (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Federal Implementation

Do me a favor, somebody tell me what the Federal status of using HTML5 is. Seems to me the Federal government sticks to established W3C guidelines so until W3C is official per W3C guidelines, no go for the whole Federal government. Besides the Federal government is gung ho about being universally accessible to all Web browsers in existence and that implies a HTML4, CSS1, XHTML1 and minimal JavaScript bias (with required Section 508 HTML tags of course!). That kind of conservatism makes dinosaurs out of developers. Fortunately, I heard in a job interview yesterday that Federal Enterprise Architecture is starting to threaten this, authorizing HTML5 and AJAX, although DOSLynx users won't be able to do a thing with HTML5, to be sure.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse doctypes, doctype declarations and tag names.
You can feed any browser any markup you like and it will "render" it. This has always been the way of the web. Since HTML 2, this was the only way (in a world of tag soup markup and broken browser implementations) to get anything to show up. HTML5 certainly doesn't change this.
If a "HTML 5" document is served to an old browser, it'll render it according to how the browser behaves (and the older the browser, the more this behaviour depends on the browser and less on the doctype declaration). If an unknown tag is encountered, then the browser will be unable to render it - and will probably ignore all content until it encounters a matching closing tag. However this doesn't make HTML 5 documents unrenderable, not even HTML 5 documents using new tags (although those will probably lose sections of their content).
There's also the deliberate design of the HTML 5 doctype declaration. It doesn't shout out, "New incompatible document format, best fail completely right now." Instead it goes out of its way to appear to be a "legacy" document to any browser that only understands that much.
Good practice (which doesn't apply for .gov or big corporates, they're too stupid) would currently be to mix doctypes on a site, because pages are pages in isolation and there's just no reason for consistency across a site. When HTML 4.01 does the job completely for a particular page then there's no reason not to keep on using it. This doesn't exclude HTML 5 for other pages on the same site, probably for video hosts or RIA pages, where 5 has something significant to offer. These might need fallbacks, but even that can largely be inlined into links (and JavaScript) on the HTML 5 page.
HTML 5 in an old browser is not a sudden death failure. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to see what happens when I try browsing HTML5 in DOSLynx.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think (few years since I needed to do this) that Lynx is actually one of those that tends to render anything and everything. The rule is (officially and generally in practice) that unknown attributes are ignored, whilst unknown tags are ignored and their contents (tags & text) ignored too. However Lynx has always tended to be quick to ignore the tags (as they don't have much effect on Lynx' rendering anyway) and it extracted and showed any text content it could find between the tags, no matter what they were. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is more than one federation in the world and "Federal" could refer to the FRG for example. Probably the original author referred to the US federal government. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with last sentence in lead paragraph

The sentence "HTML5 is intended to subsume not only HTML4, but XHTML1 and DOM2HTML (particularly JavaScript) as well." is not quite right. First "DOM2HTML" is just a local link in the referenced specification. It's not a well-known industry accepted term. Second the parenthetical "(particularly JavaScript)" is not supported by the referenced document. There are, in fact, no references to JavaScript in the referenced document. I recommend changing the sentence to "HTML5 is intended to subsume not only HTML4, but XHTML1 and DOM Level 2 HTML as well." 70.125.66.239 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though let's wait for more responses. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition for subsume please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.222.113 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To absorb or incorporate, but not to replace. JavaScript will still exist as a separate standard, but it will become seen as part of the overall HTML5 standard, in a way that it never was for HTML4. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with changing it, as it stands it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

HTML5, HTML, WHATWG, W3C and complexity

HTML5 was developed in parallel by both the WHATWG and the W3C. The standards are different. Now, with the WHATWG going unversioned, I think the perspective of merging both versions is unlikely. The article currently fails to explain that complexity. The history section as well as the lead would need to be adapted. Maybe the article should even be splitted. Technically, WHATWG's standard is now named HTML, so covering it in an HTML5 article is incorrect. Perhaps a new page should be created on that, or that should be covered in HTML. --Chealer (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WHATWG has now officially forked HTML, as announced on [1]. I tagged the article as requiring an update. --Chealer (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello?

Is there a wiki format for HTML5? Fhusafnwfszdfsfgas (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The HTML5 syntax is no longer based on SGML

The article states: "The HTML5 syntax is no longer based on SGML despite the similarity of its markup".

Does that mean that HTML5 was initially defined in SGML, but no longer? Or does it mean that HTML5 is and never was based on SGML but all the previous versions of HTML were?

Velle (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a bald statement like that is helpful: it doesn't really explain anything and it isn't strictly true (because XML syntax is a subset of SGML syntax – see W3C comparison of SGML and XML). I suppose it is referring to comparisons like HTML 5, one vocabulary, two serializations and HTML5 differences from HTML4. - Pointillist (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the previous versions of HTML were indeed based on SGML, but HTML5 is an independent language, and I think that's an important point. This has nothing to do with XML, HTML has never been related to XML outside of their mutual dependency from SGML. (But XHTML has existed as a language which attempts to be both a subset of HTML and XML) --Cbarrick1 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

HTML5 has gone live!

HTML5 has reached final stage on 13 March 2012. See [2]. Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'd call it "live". This is just WHATWG's HTML spec which they're publishing like a rolling release, without versioning of differentiating between "working standard" and "standard". Afaik, the W3C's spec (which is mostly, if not entirely the same as of right now) is still considered by them to be a "working draft". And especially now, since WHATWG stoped working with W3C last month, the status of HTML5 is dependent on which group you ask --Cbarrick1 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello World - missing

Can we have a Hello World example?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.92.126 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that a "Hello World" example would be just <p>Hello World</p> The reason been that HTML5 has not changed that part of the spec so there is no difference between HTML5 and what came before it.--Inputdata (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Complicated sentence

"Following its immediate predecessors HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1, HTML5 is a response to the observation that the HTML and XHTML in common use on the World Wide Web are a mixture of features introduced by various specifications, along with those introduced by software products such as web browsers, those established by common practice, and the many syntax errors in existing web documents"

- It is unambiguous sentence, so it must be splited into parts. --Timotv (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't we add html5 website examples?

I wanted to add a html5 / css3 inspired websote but Wikipedia for some reason removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasrjoel (talk • contribs) 04:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

RDF and Dublin Core

This article claims that a few new element tags are "semantic" - but has no mention of RDF or Dublin Core.

HTML5 as late as this date (Nov 2012) leaves most of what was the semantic web unusable or broken (which is it ?) in HTML5.

Someone needs to ask why a reference such as "date" in a meta tag renders a web page invalid. Some of the nonsense over datetime should bring into question both the process and the objectives of HTML5 - which refuse to acknowledge the obvious ( in Nov. 2012 ) - such as that it is alpha below 0.9 version level.

The absurd claim that HTML5 would simply be known as "HTML" reflects the sort of nonsense marketing of a Microsoft, not internet engineering.

This is the case of an emperor not yet of age who is - if not naked - in very shabby new clothes.

Denial has no place in engineering - however well if may serve in politics.

G. Robert Shiplett 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Browser Support

Can the article discuss current browser support for this (emerging) standard? What features can I reliably use now with FireFox, for example? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Also make it clear than HTML5 is "supported" by everything. It's a question of levels of support, for the new features added. No browser is going to see HTML5 and simply refuse to display it (avoiding the need for past techniques, such as browser sniffing). This behaviour is deliberately encouraged by some design features within HTML5, particularly for the doctype declaration. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

HTML5 Used as a Buzzword, As a Bigger, Much Greater and More Abstract "Thing"

I think it's worth noting, early on in the article (perhaps in the introduction), that HTML5 is also widely used as a broader term, which encompasses more widely standardized JavaScript standards and CSS3. For example, any presentation you've ever seen regarding HTML5 (I participated in one of the HTML5 W3C conferences in Redmond, WA), talks about much more than just HTML itself. On the contrary, HTML is the hub language for several other languages and functionalities (WebGL, CSS3, Canvas, JavaScript functionalities (WebSockets, IndexedDB, WebWorkers, etc.)), and -- IMHO -- is more of a paradigm that is hitting the web world; NOT just a language. HTML5 is the golden opportunity for all browser vendors to strive for standards compliance. We've seen a much wider effort on behalf of all browser vendors, internet companies, educational institutions, and web developers alike (oh, and the W3C), to "get it right" this time around. So, HTML5 is a much bigger "thing." It's the evangelical voice vying for semantics, accessibility (ARIA), and pushing web languages into new horizons (PhoneGap, mobile devices), and even the increasing potential of integrating WebGL, CSS3 transforms, SVG, and interactive 3D gaming. phew! Do it proud. Danielbullis (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, however HTML5 is a real thing i.e. there is a definition, and there is what people think it means. Like you said HTML5 has become this buzzword to mean anything that is new in the world of the web. The issue is that people (your average joe) still has issues with the real definition, and if we start talking about the idea that the definition and the buzzword are different things, I think it is going to make the issue worse. I am not saying that it should not be talked about but it needs to be made clear that what people call HTML5 and what HTML5 is are different things. --Inputdata (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Living Standard - means what exactly?

Can anyone explain that, ideally as a separate section in the main article? Hopefully I'm not the only one ignorant of what that is supposed to mean (apart from being a carte blance for Browser developers to cherry pick features and feel justified in doing so).--Cyberman TM (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a detailed enough concept to warrant a whole section, or even paragraph, of it's own. In fact, it's already described quite well at one point in the article: "The concept of a living standard is that it is never complete and is always being updated and improved." In essence, this means it's always in both the live and development phases, and changes are rolled out almost instantly, rather than being conglomerated into incremental builds. drewmunn talk 08:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Then it must be me, but I still don't get it how something can be a standard if it's in constant flux. The moment you stop reading, your information may already be outdated. Still, thanks for the reply, I'll try to think it over a few times, maybe I'll understand then. --Cyberman TM (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The point of it is that it evolves, but everyone is using the same hymnsheet. In general, things that have been standardised already in html5 are not altered significantly in an update, so you're unlikely to be incompatible with html5 if you've read an older version of it. The updates generally deal with new elements, or new ways of dealing with background methods regarding new elements. Older versions of the html5 standard are still classed as html5, so they are still supported, but new 'bits' are being added to flesh it out. None of the updates say "forget everything so far. This is html5 now", they say things like "remember this feature, well now we're added a new one alongside it." drewmunn talk 08:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The sentence now reads "The WHATWG organization will continue its work with HTML5 as a "Living Standard". The concept of a living standard is that it is never complete and is always being updated and improved. New features can be added but functionality will not be removed." Does this make it clearer? I would agree that before its hard to see how something can be a standard and a living standard at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What is HTML5 to most people?

There is still a lot of people in the comments section asking questions along the lines of "Give a list of HTML5 OS's". Thus proving that they still do not understand that HTML5 is just a new standard. They seem to think that it is software to download. The article does not help in that it never explains anything, it just talks about HTML5 from the standpoint of someone who already knows what HTML is. If you are just a normal person who has heard the term and googled it, the article is next to useless at explaining. There needs to be (and in fact it has been requested) a section talking about HTML5 from the standpoint of a person who is finding about about the term for the first time. Inputdata (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that we'd be replicating a large amount of content found on the HTML page. This content would, to cater for your needs, have to be replicated on all articles about HTML revisions, which isn't a good way to store or present data. How would you feel about more prominently linking to HTML? drewmunn talk 13:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This may be ok, however I was thinking of a sentence along the lines of "HTML is rendered by a web browser, that browser needs to be updated with to the latest standard to be able to render the desired results. HTML5 is the newest revision of HTML and as a result the level of compliance is still limited" then maybe a table showing levels of support for different browsers for different parts of the spec, or if one already exists (I have not checked) a link to that instead. Inputdata (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a bit broad, and not completely accurate. HTML has much wider usage than rendering in web browsers, and limiting it to that would confuse people more if they come across it in another location, and using a different section of the language. That's why there's a whole article for HTML, rather than just a couple of sentences. Also, browser compliance on different elements would get a little out of hand quite quickly. There are over 115 tags in html5, and many of them can be used and interpreted in different ways depending on the browser you're using. On top of that, some browsers have their own tags that aren't standard, but they consider part of the html5 integration. As such, a table would be somewhat difficult and ungainly. Level of compliance is limited for every specification not just html5, so maybe a graph on the HTML page saying what browsers say they are currently compatible with might be good. drewmunn talk 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a better way to display compliance. Would a small and simple sample of some of the most used tags in code examples be a good idea, I am just trying to think of the best way to show people that HTML5 is just code people type and not something more complex like the comments seem to indicate people think. Inputdata (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I personally think one of the biggest clues to that is "HTML5 is a markup language...". It's the same in all the other programming language articles, but I assume people don't fall into them without knowing a bit more about what the term language means in computing. I'll try and think of a way of subtly correcting so we don't become an guide. Picking and choosing tags would be very difficult (and lead to expansive lists edited by every passing contributor who thinks "wait, they missed X tag"), and some tags react very differently on browsers that both claim html5 compliancy, so there is not definite "X Browser supports X tag". It'd be "X Browser supports Y tag in this way, whilst Y browser supports it sort of the same, but also with a different few dangly additions that X browser doesn't have. Meanwhile, Z browser does it a completely different way, and you have to add a prefix to X tag components to support styling in the manner required." You see where this is going? It's not as simple as a binary support/doesn't support checkbox. If we had it set up like that, we'd be mis-representing information on a massive scale; lay-users would wonder why a website using certain tags works differently in IE to Chrome, and developers would go "Oh, it's OK, Wikipedia says it's supported", and without proper testing, distribute faulty products.  drewmunn  talk  18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"One vocabulary, two serializations", can add a little table to the article?

As showed by N. Krebs (2008), the following table may help people who do not understand all the meaning and consequences of "HTML 5, one vocabulary, two serializations" -- HTML5 was the first standard with this proposal, see also the J. Graham illustration (is public and can be used here!). 

text/html | application/xhtml+xml
----------|----------------------
HTML 2.0  |
HTML 3.2  |
HTML 4.01 | XHTML 1.0
          | XHTML 2
HTML 5    | HTML 5
(XML not dead, but name changed from "XHTML" to  "XML-Valid HTML5")

Perhaps with some comments, like these (about "draconian error handling" of XHTML).

--Krauss (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Subsume"?

A sentence in the intro reads: HTML5 is intended to subsume not only HTML 4, but also XHTML 1 and DOM Level 2 HTML. Why require people to leave the site just to look up "subsume"? Why not just say "include"? It's superfluous verbosity. 5Q5 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that "subsume" is an uncommon word, but aside from that it seems like "supersede", or perhaps "deprecate" would fit better. I think "include" would give the wrong impression that those specifications are included verbatim. —WOFall (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I know of no synonyms for subsume, in the full and precise sense in which it is used here. At simple:HTML5 there might be a point, but I don't see it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

HTML is the new HTML5

Did this whole article miss this announcement from nearly 2 years ago? http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

  • HTML5 "is now basically being used to mean anything Web-standards-related"
  • "The HTML specification...just...known as 'HTML'"
  • "The WHATWG HTML spec can...be considered a "living standard"

HTML5 is not a markup language, HTML is. HTML5 is basically an open source brand name encompassing all open web technologies. HTML is a living document that encompasses the rest of what this Wikipedia article discusses. This whole article needs to be rewritten. HTML5 was the successor of HTML 4.01, but it isn't anymore. Now it's just HTML. HTML5 has it's own story which should be reflected in this article. Antiaverage (talk)


I strongly disagree. HTML5 is the successor to HTML. Public opinions on it are irrelevant. What it is is what it is, and it's HTML.

That said, I think this article need to be rewritten to specify that HTML5 webpages mostly use JavaScript to perform their newest rather than HTML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.208.138 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What the hell does "perform their newest" mean. And no, HTML pages don't use JavaScript to perform anything. JavaScript uses JavaScript to perform things. They are entirely unrelated standards that happen to be mixed together in webpages through the use of the HTML script tag. As to the idea that "HTML is the new HTML5", this is a freaking *blog entry*, since when do we take them in consideration when deciding the name for things? 74.67.17.69 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"HTML5 on its own cannot be used for animation"

So, this statement is completely, on its face, false. An <img> tag that pulls in a .gif is using HTML5 for animation, as is any <video> tag. I know this is semantics, but the statement, and the other one later in the document that says that same thing, definitely need to be reworded so as to make some amount of sense. 74.67.17.69 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with HTML5 article

Page HTML5 article Is Closely Related to HTML5 Dudel250 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So "closely related" is reason to merge?
I can see reason to rename HTML5 article to a clearer name (Article element would be our convention so far), to keep it or even to delete it if we don't consider that this new element in isolation meets WP:N. However I see nothing in the middle supporting a merge: it's either worth writing about because the element warrants discussion, or it's a name listed in HTML5 and no more. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions I will think about getting rid of it under CSD A10 or moving it to a new name. Could someone get rid of the merge tags Thanks! Dudel250 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:  Finished moveing Dudel250 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Digital Restriction Management

The links in the DRM Section go to the Defective by design page - I think going to the Digital Rights Management page may be better, as it better explains the aim. Know this could be a contentious move, so wanted to flag it before doing anything 213.120.104.147 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. --Racklever (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy Chart

As a red/green color blind individual, the taxonomy chart under the New APIs section is unreadable. I recommend at least editing the image to use more contrasted colors so color blind folks can read it.

74.10.72.66 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Phrase (this was not part of HTML5 though) unclear as to what it's referring to

The sentence should be clarified or removed. Coreydaj (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

WHATWG claims W3C's HTML5 is a "fork" of theirs and not authoritative

I'm on one of WHATWG's mailing lists. I raised an issue of the long-standing and frequently bug-reported conflict between the W3C spec for the <cite>...</cite> element and WHATWG's. I was told:

"You may be interested in the history here. W3C 'HTML5' is actually forked from the WHATWG HTML Standard; your claim that the W3C version is in some way authoritative or 'full', or that the WHATWG is redefining things, doesn’t really fit with the facts. See things like https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 or https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_the_difference_between_the_w3c_and_the/ . In fact, if you read up, you’ll see that W3C fork is not only based on the HTML Standard, but periodically copies and pastes from it" ... "[WHATWG] certainly don’t write the specification based on [W3C's], and I don't think it's fair to call us 'unresponsive' if we don't update [ours], given that [theirs] is an unauthoritative source that we don't control or consult. In contrast, we're pretty responsive to actual bugs reported against the content of [our] spec" ... "It’s true that certain W3C editors have, over the years, redefined certain elements in ways that match how they like to write their personal documents. ... [I]t’s best to treat this [i.e., W3C having a different definition of the <cite> element] just as if any other person had decided to redefine an element for their own usage, e.g. how Twitter Bootstrap redefined <i> to mean 'icon'. It’s against the HTML Standard, and writing it down in a forked document and being appointed 'editor' by the forking organization doesn’t really make that redefinition authoritative or 'correct'. (Neither does 'real-world usage'; again, if that was the criteria, we would redefine <i> to mean icon, given how many pages use it that way.)"

This clearly does not jibe with what we have written here. I'm wondering if our material is complete/correct, or if I'm being fed a bunch of subjective and inaccurate spin.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a fairly clear consensus against the proposed move at this time. bd2412 T 18:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

HTML5 → HTML 5 – Updating article title to match the article contents which state that HTML 5 is now the correct name. Dónal O'Flynn (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's the MOS:TM argument. Per this blog posting, "Calling HTML 5 “HTML5” is inconsistent and grammatically wrong." As he points out, this blog argues that "Sometimes people kept writing “HTML5” and sometimes “HTML 5” (even on whatwg.org). This kind of inconsistency is bad for branding", which seems to me the quintessential argument for adding the space, per Wikipedia's manual of style for trademarks. HTML 5, often stylized HTML5... Leaning support. wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just because HTML 5.2 is called HTML 5.2 does not mean that HTML5 is not called HTML5. It's not the same. wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per support arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamy Jazz (talk • contribs) 20:20, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reliable sources in the article still use HTML5. Calling it "HTML 5" because "HTML 5.2" has a space is WP:OR. See WP:COMMONNAME. Bradv 14:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Filename extension in infobox

The main infobox on the article page says the file extension is ".html", with the ".html" in a little box. I tried editing it to add "or .htm", but I don't see way to put the ".htm" in a separate box with the "or" outside the boxes. So I thought I would ask here how to do this (or someone else to do it), rather than make that change, which would be technically incorrect. (It would mean that there is one extension, ".html or .htm".) --Ennex2 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed that in the second infobox, for XHTML5, the value box for file extension contains ".xhtml, .html". So I'm going to go ahead and change that in the first infobox to ".html, .htm". --Ennex2 (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HTML5/Archive_2&oldid=1112790126"