Why it's time to pay attention to HTML5


Those cool bouncing Google homepage balls everyone was talking about last week were an example of HTML5, but ifIf you want to see an example of what the format can really do, in action, take a look at this.

HTML5 is the forthcoming standard that can incorporate features directly into a Web site's code, such as video, audio, gallery displays and drag-and-drop. Such features were formerly reliant on third-party plug-ins like Adobe's Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight. You know, the formats that: 1). Are pretty much the antithesis of search engine optimization and 2). Don’t work on mobile platforms such as the iPhone or iPad., iPad or Android devices.

With smartphones proliferating, it's a small wonder that AOL this year rolled out an HTML5 mobile portal, as did YouTube's mobile site (YouTube is also running an HTML5 beta site for standard web browsers).

What's the big deal?

HTML5 offers cutting edge levels of interactivity, such as the ability to edit the content on a page, or to drag and drop objects from one window to another. Certainly, the ability to run video on mobile platforms is not to be sneezed at. Another area in which HTML5 gets interesting is with audio and video, which can be integrated into a site's code. Whereas Flash content is all but invisible to search engines, HTML5 allows for more accurate indexing and tagging of multimedia content.

Will web sites that don’t migrate to HTML5 lag behind in search results as the format's early adopters climb the ranks in organic listings? Very possibly.

Who will those early adoptors be? Publishers, for starters. As publishers migrate to mobile platforms such as the iPad, HTML5 will provide a way for them to push out and to monetize multimedia content with platform-compliant advertising. (Here's a link to a mobile HTML5 ad for Tuborg beer in which you can open a beer bottle and watch it empty - It's only viewable a mobile device, of course: http://wap.moblin.com/tuborg)

Fast on the heels of publishers - well, faster, really, are the vendors who provide mobile and digital ads. The major ones already have offerings to enable HTML5 advertising - which the IAB UK is staunchly supporting:

"The programming language HTML5 used by most new browsers, can do almost as much as Flash without the power drain. Advertisers simply need to start creating ads in HTML5, rather than Flash. Many brands have already done this successfully on the iPad with fantastic results."

Brands, too, will be among the first on the bandwagon in a rush to leverage the newer, cooler, more interactive features of this still-in-development format on sites and microsites. It's likely - but still uncertain - e-commerce functionality might eventually become part of the new language.

Currently, HTML5 is very much wait and see. The emphasis now is on the "see" - seeing how it develops, and assessing how it will become part of your digital strategy.

This post was updated on Sept. 15 to correct technical inaccuracies.

Rebecca Lieb oversees Econsultancy's North American operations.

Follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

Topics: Mobile Search Marketing Strategy & Operations Customer Experience
Add your own

Reader comments (54)

  1. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rich Clark

    11:29PM on 13th September 2010

    Erm Google's bouncing balls weren't HTML5, there is no 'gallery' element and I'd be interested to find out what E-commerce functionality is likely to be added? Also in my opinion HTML5 is more 'here and now' rather than 'wait & see', particularly with the release of IE9 on Wednesday which has significantly improved HTML5 support. Econsultancy can usually be trusted to produce high quality, informative articles but there seems to have been a lack of research in this article which is a shame.

  2. Avatar-blank-50x50 Stu

    11:51PM on 13th September 2010

    "Flash content is all but invisible to search engines" - how very 1998 of you. I'm a big supporter of both HTML5 and Flash, yet in my opinion this ill-researched article has absolutely no foundation nor merit. Poor poor advice. I would suggest that any newcomers to the industry ignore the above entirely and take the opportunity to read the vast wealth of information on the subject themselves.

  3. Rebecca Lieb Rebecca Lieb

    Digital Marketing Consultant & Author at self-employed

    11:53PM on 13th September 2010


    According to numerous sources, the balls were indeed in HTML5, specifically CSS3, part of the standard. Here's one citation from The Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0907/Google-logo-Is-there-a-secret-message-hidden-in-the-bouncing-balls

    Indeed, IE9 is widely expected to offer HTML5 support, but currently not all major browsers support HTML5 the same way. The standard is still "under development" and still a "working draft" with the W3C. Case in point: the Apple links to HTML5 examples, posted in the next two paragraphs, work only in the Safari browser. Without more universal access and standardization, there certainly are limits to the "here and now."

    You can also view some examples of HTML5 gallery transitions on Apple's website (but you'll need Safari to do so): http://www.apple.com/html5/ Whether or not the format will support e-commerce functionality remains to be seen, of course - the post indicates, I hope, that it's speculation.

    But again, with functionality such as 360-degree views (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/threesixty/) some e-commerce advantages are quite clear already. I hope these links help substantiate the fact that indeed, a bit of research did go into the post!



  4. Avatar-blank-50x50 Eric

    12:08AM on 14th September 2010

    I have to agree with the comments above. Please remove this article because it is not funded by research and facts! One of the biggest issues with those HTML 'standards' is that it takes years and years to become standard. IE/FF/Safari/Chrome etc.. all use a abbrivation of this 'standard', which makes developing a pain. Also, the CPU usage of HTML 5 based interaction is huge, making it not really suitable for heavy interaction based sites (let alone for mobile)

  5. Avatar-blank-50x50 Jamie Wright

    12:25AM on 14th September 2010


    "numerous sources" got it wrong it was never HTML5 or CSS3, just a bit of javascript, hence a html5 version that was made of the same thing.

    Also the html5 showcase that apple have is merely to an advert for people to start using their safari browser instead of competitors, there is no valid reason why you need to use safari to view those examples other than a marketing ploy that you have obviously fallen foul of... every one of those example could be used in google chrome an opera if apple wasn't browser sniffing to force you into viewing in safari... another point that needs to be made is that the html5 showcxase that apple has includes newly supported features by browsers that aren't acttually part of the html5 spec.

    all in all it really doesn't seem like you did do your research or at least thoroughly enough, i'm suprised you've not just cited wikipedia or something else as "creatable" as your defending sources... shame.

    kindest regards,


  6. Avatar-blank-50x50 Gareth

    7:05AM on 14th September 2010

    Though Google run with the HTML5 doctype, it doesn't make every piece of functionality on the page HTML5. The bouncing balls were nothing more than JavaScript styled with CSS3

    You may have come across a few examples where people drew the functionality with Canvas, such as the example by Rob Hawkes, but that was not how Google implemented their idea.

    I would also disagree with the 'wait and see' comment - strong developers who are looking into the standards are already playing a key role in the delivery of HTML5 and many, many sites already turn to it for its core fundamentals. It is true not all browsers support every aspect of it, however, the majority of browsers support the fundamentals which is imperative for core functionality

    HTML5 is something that should be studied, reviewed and by all means used here and today.. Stop hiding away and waiting for the 'big guns' to implement, be a market leader and utilise what is on offer now!

  7. Avatar-blank-50x50 Stephen Hay

    7:15AM on 14th September 2010

    With all due respect, CSS3 is absolutely *not* part of HTML5.

  8. Avatar-blank-50x50 Matt

    8:30AM on 14th September 2010

    Wow, I thought some of the smashingmag HTML5 articles were poorly researched...

    HTML5 is not CSS3, they are completely different standards. The Apple gallery example uses CSS3 animations.

    The Google balls were CSS3 and JS, it's nothing new really. The effect could have been achieved years ago if images were used instead of HTML elements

  9. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rich Clark

    9:20AM on 14th September 2010

    Rebecca, thanks for your reply but I'm afraid your sources were misinformed. The only thing that is HTML5 from Googles bouncing balls is the doctype. In addition CSS3 _is not_ HTML5. With the semantic web HTML deals with describing your content - the markup layer while CSS deals with the presentation of the site (colours, fonts etc). A large part of HTML5 is to remove the legacy presentational elements that were present in HTML 4 because they are better dealt with using CSS - a set of completely different specifications. In addition, regarding the Apple demos you mention. Apple were very naughty there and shouldn't restrict them to only Safari users, most of them would work equally well in Firefox, Chrome, IE9 & Opera if they'd bothered to spend the time checking. Secondly, last time I checked only one of those demos actually uses HTML5, the rest use CSS or JavaScript - they do mention this but have given the whole set of technologies the HTML5 buzzword, which is frankly, incorrect. Finally, I'm wondering if you could let us know how many web designers & developers you spoke to when writing this article to get a rounded view? Thanks Rich

  10. Avatar-blank-50x50 Ian Devlin

    9:28AM on 14th September 2010

    Two links for you, which you probably should have looked at before writing this article: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/06/22/the-confusion-surrounding-html5/ and http://www.aregooglesbouncingballshtml5.com/

  11. Avatar-blank-50x50 Ian Devlin

    9:29AM on 14th September 2010


  12. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rich Higgins

    10:05AM on 14th September 2010

    Don't believe the hype, I've heard the next release of Silverlight (dubbed 'Silverflight') will blow all this HTML5 nonsense away. Due sometime around 2022 I believe. It's expected at that time that this page, along with most of the current internet, will be archived and put in a time capsule at the location where the internet cables cross. Just between me and you... that's Croydon.

  13. Avatar-blank-50x50 Morris

    10:35AM on 14th September 2010

    @author - believe it or not, we actually have been paying attention to html5. Half of the posts on Nettuts and Smashing Mag are about html5, for starters.

    @Rich - you can't be serious? a third party (by Microsoft, no less) app will "blow" html5 - a web standard - away? Ha! 

  14. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tady Walsh

    10:59AM on 14th September 2010

    This is without doubt the worst example of HTML5 ignorance I've read yet. There appears to be no research and is based on conjecture, opinion and hearsay. I would suggest that anyone interested in learning more about HTML5 ignore this article in its entirity and look elsewhere. Econsultancy should remove this article before it further damages their reputation.

  15. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tady Walsh

    11:29AM on 14th September 2010

    In fact Rebecca, I must go so far as to point out that even in your defence of the article above, you say:


    CSS3 is in absolutely NO WAY part of the HTML5 standard. Yes it is being defined concurrently, yes it is complimentary to HTML5, but part of the standard!?


    Here, in comic strip format, is all you need to know about HTML5.

  16. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tomas

    1:08PM on 14th September 2010

    HTML5 give some small benefits at the moment. It can be useful for mobile platforms for example. But it also give headache. Doesn't work in all browsers and not the same. You need multiple formats. Complex things are often slower than Flash. Have people thinking HTML5 is awesome been away from the web and trends latest years or just hate Flash? 

  17. Avatar-blank-50x50 acidsmile

    1:08PM on 14th September 2010

    @the author Bruce Lawson sums it up nicely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvEncpCDEBI

  18. Avatar-blank-50x50 Simon Young

    1:10PM on 14th September 2010

    Rebecca - just a thought, you might like to follow the link to Rich Clark's website before you lecture him on HTML5...

  19. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tady Walsh

    1:20PM on 14th September 2010

    @Thomas, Whatever about Rebecca getting almost all the facts in relation to HTML5 wrong in this article, don't bring Flash into this. The argument of Flash v HTML5 doesn't even exist, let alone warrant comment. Steve Jobs made a big deal out of this when in reality, the only part of HTML5 that has anything to do with competing with Flash is the "canvas" tag. Trust the people making comments here, this isn't relevant. Flash will continue to co-exist long into the future with HTML5. As for your browser comment, all new browsers will support HTML5 (if they don't already) and all old browsers can be made to support it with the use of a single javascript include. As previously pointed out, refer to the work of Jeremy Keith, Jeffrey Zeldman, Bruce Lawson, Ian Hicks and various others if you truly wish to learn about and understand HTML5.

  20. Avatar-blank-50x50 T

    1:21PM on 14th September 2010

    My. The Flash player on my phone must be some sort of fake then ? The full Flash player has been on Android (2.2) for ages now, and my Nokia N900 shipped with it *last year*...

  21. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rob Hawkes

    1:23PM on 14th September 2010

    What a pile of tosh! Why are apparently reputable organisations finding it so hard to do some genuine research instead of relying on "other sources". Your sources lied, a tiny little search would have shown you that the Google balls logo was not HTML5. This is exactly the reason I recreated it in HTML5, in retaliation to ridiculous and under-researched articles like this! http://rawkes.com/experiments/google-bouncing-balls-canvas/

  22. Avatar-blank-50x50 mark

    1:34PM on 14th September 2010

    @T - yeah, we've seen how well flash on android works... complete garbage, what a joke.  you can keep it.  

  23. Avatar-blank-50x50 Mark Ford

    1:39PM on 14th September 2010

    Oh dear oh dear. I wonder which will disappear fastest, the comments or the article? If Econsultancy wanted to create a buzz about HTML5 they should have got a well informed techy to write an article, not an expert in interactive marketing and advertising :s

  24. Avatar-blank-50x50 Shelley

    1:44PM on 14th September 2010

    There are some errors/misunderstandings in this article, but not enough to account for the level of hostility in these comments. The misunderstandings/errors are not that uncommon, and people conflating CSS3 with HTML5 is also not that uncommon. Why so much vitriol in the comments? I don't see the same level with other articles that have also made the same mistakes. And with all the hype about HTML5--instituted by more than one browser company--it's not surprising that there's confusion about what is, or is not, HTML5. Seriously--why are you all so aggressively pissed?

  25. Avatar-blank-50x50 Paul Wallas

    1:46PM on 14th September 2010

    Nice article, shame its complete nonsense. Please research before you post articles informing people about HTML5. I hope this article, as you so kindly state 'lags behind in search results' so other people do not waste their time reading it.

  26. Dave Kinsella Dave Kinsella

    Head of Interactive Design at Quantiv

    1:51PM on 14th September 2010

    If nothing else, this article and the associated backlash highlights a lack of clarity on the issue of what is and isn't HTML5.

    Apple are guilty (possibly above all others) of confusing the issue by hijacking HTML5 - a technical specification, to use as a buzzword in promoting their own browser. Why oh why couldn't they have called it the "Safari showcase"?

    It may give Safari a sheen of futuristic technical glamour to the uninitiated but it's going to turn into "AJAX" and "Web 2.0" all over again.

    Non-techies will use the terms to describe an imaginary utopia where nothing is impossible and confuse the hell out of technical-implementors by insisting that "the AJAX should be done in HTML5 with CSS3 scripting to power the data 2.0 layer through an S.O.A. to optimise the SERPs for keyphrase density" etc...

    People want a buzzword to hang all of this next-wave technology onto, looks like HTML5 got snared. 

  27. Avatar-blank-50x50 Jonathon Joyce

    1:51PM on 14th September 2010

    I love how you say the Apple examples ONLY worked on Safari - not true, they worked on Chrome and Firefox. Apple tried to make out it was only there browser because they wanted to get more people downloading it.

  28. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rich Clark

    2:07PM on 14th September 2010

    @dave, couldn't agree with you more that a lot of this confusion has come from Apple's poor choice of naming. However, that's where we are. The problem arises when client x wants a site "built with HTML5" to work perfectly with every browser cos they've heard it's going to save the world and you then have to explain how certain features (possibly CSS3 stuff cos it's all one & the same right?) aren't going to work in less advanced browsers and to make it do so is going to cost them more.

  29. Avatar-blank-50x50 Jessica

    2:12PM on 14th September 2010

    HTML has very little to do with search engines, pretty much as long as it's in the , they'll see it. Google isn't about to cut support when a good chunk of pages haven't been updated since 1998. It'd be a REALLY bad and frustrating move. Most of the non-english speaking marketers don't use proper HTML validation either.

  30. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tony

    2:14PM on 14th September 2010

    @Shelley: How exactly is pointing out the flaws of this article "hostile"? And please, show me the "vitriol." These may be big words you pulled from a dictionary, but they hardly apply in this case.

  31. Dave Kinsella Dave Kinsella

    Head of Interactive Design at Quantiv

    2:18PM on 14th September 2010

    @Rich it's a dangerous situation right enough "build it in HTML5" is becoming the new "make it Web 2.0" the difference being that it's more confusing because HTML5 is a real thing.

  32. Avatar-blank-50x50 Jessica

    2:20PM on 14th September 2010

    That was supposed to be the body tag by the way, it cut out. Should mention the meta tags aswell.

  33. Avatar-blank-50x50 Shelley

    2:25PM on 14th September 2010

    Well, Tony, for one -- once one person has pointed out the CSS3 error, really does everyone else need pile on? Secondly, saying things like "What a load of tripe" and "so inaccurate it's probably link bait" and "remove this article" and so on are, to me, hostile. Especially considering that HTML5, as a term, has been broadened to supposedly encompass all new specifications, including CSS3. It's unfortunate, but the article's author is not the first to do so. Rather than demonstrate that those knowledgeable about HTML5 are know-it-all a**holes, let's educate, and inform, rather than pile on, and trash.

  34. Avatar-blank-50x50 Ray Mosley

    2:26PM on 14th September 2010

    Does anyone remember when web 2.0 became a buzz word and the actual definition (if there ever was one) was that a group of designers had presented how the future of web would be social and more interactive two way thing. Everyone seemed to love the term web 2.0 and I heard clients and articles on places like this use it as an umbrella term for lots of things that it never stood for i.e. javascript animations, ajax and even bright colours.

    This article does the same thing but now it's HTML 5. The concepts are not HTML 5 but are modern ideas and techniques, HTML 5 is just a new mark up standard that hopefully will produce more standard approaches to handling common tasks, but it's all semantics. In truth though it's not quite right in what it is saying I don't think any big crimes have been commited. it's more a comment on using newer techniques that they are grouping under HTML 5 probably for a bit of link bait.

    Expect the term to come up in your tender documents and client meetings for years to come simply because none techies read articles like this. To be honest we should discuss concepts and functionality as opposed what code is behind the curtain and leave the technical to the programmers like me.

  35. Avatar-blank-50x50 T

    2:28PM on 14th September 2010

    @mark: Shrug. It works well for me. Also worth saying Adobe just bought out an update for Flash on Android, but you have to install from the Market rather than wait for OTA. Should be even faster now. And the reason to make a fuss is that the inaccuracies in this article are *exactly* what are causing so many problems...

  36. Anonymous

    2:40PM on 14th September 2010

    Having read the article and the responses within the community I am rather disappointed in e-consultancy.

    In the coming months I will be relying on them to help develop my education and seeing an article of this calibre really makes me rather nervous.

    An article such as this should have been put through a senior developer/techie to ensure it accuracy and not stitched together from around the web.

  37. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tady Walsh

    3:00PM on 14th September 2010

    And *bang* with that anonymous comment, we have the exact reason why posts like this should be properly fact checked and can seriously damage the reputation of a company like Econsultancy.

  38. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rich Clark

    3:57PM on 14th September 2010

    Tom, thanks for the comment and I agree we're stuck the the HTML5 as a brand term just as we were with Web 2.0. As a semi regular reader of your columns I agree that your targe audience are digital marketeers. However, I work for a digital marketing company but don't class myself as a marketeer - I'm a front end developer. I read your articles because to do my job well I need to be well versed on a range of subjects not only HTML & CSS. Therefore I feel that it's your responsibility to arm your readers (primarily marketing folk) with the correct knowledge to ensure they aren't then spreading a misinformed message to their clients. The sales guys I work with know what HTML5 is and can explain it as such, therefore in my opinion there's no reason your authors shouldn't be able to either. I look forward to reading your follow up post. Finally, apologies for all the fuss, it wasn't my intention I merely wanted to point our a few inaccuracies for readers.

  39. Avatar-blank-50x50 Ed

    4:08PM on 14th September 2010

    This article hasn't done you any favours. After the Google comment you then make this point

    'want to see an example of what the format can really do, take a look at this.'

    However, when you view source (in Chrome as the site doesn't work in FF) the first line of code is:

    So that's not HTML 5 either...

  40. Avatar-blank-50x50 Ed

    4:09PM on 14th September 2010

    Sorry, it lost the first line of code, so it was:




  41. Avatar-blank-50x50 Abid

    4:21PM on 14th September 2010

    CSS3 != HTML5. Econsultancy folks, please do thorough research on the topic in question, before embarking on very misleading blog posts in future.

    There are already enough misconceptions on what HTML5 is and is not, without further confusion being added.

    HTML5 cannot afford to become the new Web 2.0. Although I fear it's already too late.

  42. Avatar-blank-50x50 Rob Hayward

    4:32PM on 14th September 2010

    I'm all for HTML5 being pushed thesedays, especially as an alternative Flash but indeed, come on guys, this is a professional site - do the research.

  43. Avatar-blank-50x50 Burt Stanopolous

    4:54PM on 14th September 2010

    "Without the powertrain"???  Is HTML5 code just going to magically repaint the screen without any CPU cycles?  I think not.  YOu seriously need to study up on technology before writing crap like this.

    Also - HTML5 is a declarative language.  YOu cannot "program" in HTML5.  You use JavaScript for scripting.  YOur claim that Flash/Silverlight are the antithesis of SEO also shows that you do not understand how the large SE's work.  Binary content has not been an issue since Google migrated to a dynamic ranking algorithm about 5 years ago and Adobe release Ichabod. But hey - why believe me.  Go to Google then do an advanced search and see for yourself.  Google can do filetype:swf

    You seriously need to recant this article before you lead people into the void of non-knowledge.

  44. Avatar-blank-50x50 Zack

    6:19PM on 14th September 2010

    The author of this article should be the one apologizing.

  45. Avatar-blank-50x50 Thierry Lalinne

    6:22PM on 14th September 2010

    Go watch this show http://5by5.tv/bigwebshow/2 and learn from REAL experts about HTML5 : Jeremy Keith and Jeffrey Zeldman.

    HTML5 is REAL and we can embrace it NOW !

  46. Avatar-blank-50x50 Armitage

    10:58PM on 14th September 2010

    With all due respect Rebecca, you are flat-out wrong on several points. CSM, while a fine publication, is hardly something to rely on when speaking of the finer details of web standards. Also, several statements you have made betray a lack of basic knowledge of the subject. A bit of advice, the only resource for information regarding the HTML5 spec is w3.org.  Ignore at your own risk, or at least have a web-dev look over your work (humbling isn't it). I will give you some credit as nowadays in the media HTML5 has become a buzzword meaning 'things previously only done in Flash'.

  47. Avatar-blank-50x50 Dan G

    12:06AM on 15th September 2010

    Um, Flash works on Android devices.


    Why don't you just delete this article and admit you had absolutly no idea what you were talking about when you wrote it?

  48. Avatar-blank-50x50 Tady Walsh

    11:19AM on 15th September 2010

    @Dan G @T: In fairness to Rebecca here, and as an Android user, the number of smartphones that are Flash capable is extremely small versus those that are not. The majority cannot accommodate Flash entirely.

    This, again though, leads to further confusion as to what exactly HTML5 is. Rich Clarks comments are quite correct, that maybe the target audience of this article is not intended towards such a tech minded public, but the fact of the matter is that it is reaching that audience regardless.

    Like Rich, I work for a company who as a web design agency, do a considerable amount of online marketing for our clients. We are in an encouragement phase to try and get them to understand what the upcoming technologies are and what they can do for them. If those clients (who ARE Econsultancy's target audience) do some further research themselves and come across this article, they will likewise be very confused and I can guarantee will ask us to do all the things that this article promises and more.

    Apply this example to all the web design agencies across Ireland and the UK and you can see how this article is a further detriment to the knowledge base of the both the client and the user. Furthermore, as Econsultancy are recognised to be excellent at producing blogs and articles in the area of marketing, it is common (as in our example) to automatically re-tweet their posts as it makes sense to promote their articles as leaders in the field. This unfortunate re-tweet has made US look bad in that we have to now explain to our followers that we understand that this article is mostly incorrect and that this is not reflective or representative of our view of HTML5 or it's adoption. This is not Econsultancy's fault per se, but goes to show the snowball affect that this type of misinformation can lead to.

    Finally while all up for freedom of information and the integrity of a company's reputation, I feel that really at this stage, this article should be removed or a new post authored by someone more knowledgable in this field, to "put the record straight" so to say. At this stage, regular visitors to the site are not going to scroll down as far as this comment to realise how incorrect this article is.

    Also, I liked the CSS effect on the logo. It was very clever and I miss it!!!

  49. Avatar-blank-50x50 Elliot Ross

    1:04PM on 16th September 2010

    ^ a (slightly) valid point maybe, but begging for google juice with your name/url doesn't bring you much credibility.. I agree that HTML5 is becoming a catch all 'Web 2.0' style nonsense name for a web where everything is possible and has no contraints. Maybe a well placed, well informed non-techie facing article explaining exactly what HTML 5 is and isn't might help on that front....

  50. Avatar-blank-50x50 Elliot Ross

    1:05PM on 16th September 2010

    haha, the comment I was referring to got deleted.. so the first bit doesn't make sense there.

  51. Ashley Friedlein Ashley Friedlein Staff

    CEO at Econsultancy

    4:03PM on 16th September 2010


    We've made some updates to the original article but used strikethrough to show what has been deleted and green for new inserts. We feel it is best to show what was originally posted but mark up the changes we've subsequently made.

    You might also want to check out the mark up for those deletions and insertions. The irony ;) 

  52. Avatar-blank-50x50 Web Technology News

    10:01AM on 19th September 2010

    It'll be the same thing when developers starting going from HTML 4.01 to XHTML. It'll be a slow progression and then in a few years most the sites will be on HTML 5 - while HTML 6 is just being released :)

    Yeah the mix up of CSS3 and HTML5 in this article looses it's merit somewhat.

  53. Avatar-blank-50x50 Graham

    2:15PM on 27th September 2010

    Perhaps the learning point here is that if you want to publish an article about a technical development, HTML5 in this case, you should ensure it is written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Rebecca Lieb, judging by the biographical info published on this site, seems to my eye at least not to be a technically oriented person. She may have plenty of broader knowledge about web things, but she clearly is not expert on the key issues relating to this piece.

  54. Richard Powell Richard Powell

    eCommerce Professional at Freelance (Directrix Digital)

    11:36PM on 10th November 2011

    I am close to relaunching a large University website in HTML5 + CSS3 + jQuery mobile.

    I am interested in who has trodden this path already. Which large websites do you know of that have switched to HTML5 + CSS3?

    I haven't found any examples yet.

Log in to post a comment