From W3C:

"The problem we're facing right now is there is already a lot of excitement for HTML5, but it's a little too early to deploy it because we're running into interoperability issues," including differences between video on devices, said the official, Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C interaction domain leader. He is responsible for specifications like HTML and SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics).

As usual the W3c are late, I've been saying that for quite a while

i wouldnt expect anything else from the w3c

what does everyone make of this article, just general waffle or is it actually something?

http://www.w3.org/News/2010#entry-8922

I agree with them, having several different implementations and way of implementing things is not very different from the web of 10 years ago (15 years now maybe?), with several companies trying to specify the norms for their own needs... Which finally made the Web slowing down for a long time.

Soo.. don't use the VIDEO pieces.. no reason you can't prepare and use those parts of html5 that DO work. I'm not waiting another 15 years as the W3C moves at it's glacial pace.

I didn't move to tableless layouts until 2005. Even then, IE6 has been a pain in the *** to deal with over the last 5 years. Only now is IE6 not an issue...

I'm not going to start using HTML5 until all major browsers have adopted it...

Doing anything else is a waste of your time. I use what works, not what's cool with the kids.

W3C can move as quickly or slowly as it wants to... it's not a determining factor in what technologies you should or shouldn't use... your USERS are the determining factor (or should be, anhyway... too many "professional" web designers seem to forget the fact that they're developing sites that have to be used by other people.)

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/html-f...-html-5-a.html

LOL. I forgot that conversation took place here. At least I'm consistent!

W3C can suck my html.

Ive been using it on chrome for a while and will continue to use it for chrome only apps.

I think it's still too early to contemplate using HTML on most production sites, unless you're at the cutting edge and/or have a high proportion of visitors using HTML5 compatible browsers.

That will start to change when IE9 is released, but adopting HTML5 will mean going back to adding temporay solutions to provide a fallback for older versions of IE until they tail off - and that's not going to be for a while.

In the meantime I've taken the approach of revising my CSS class naming to match HTML5 conventions, eg <div class="section"> can quickly be changed to <section>.

I haven't really started exploring HTML5... guess this gives me a little more breathing space.

Originally Posted by blue-dreamer

In the meantime I've taken the approach of revising my CSS class naming to match HTML5 conventions, eg <div class="section"> can quickly be changed to <section>.

That's a pretty sensible idea, might start adopting that myself.

I really like that idea, of class and id names to match elements. thumbs up!

We have been building all of our sites in our CMS using the HTML5 doctype and CSS3 for those browsers that support it. For those that do not, the sites degrade gracefully, as that is our 'duty' as a web development team. We get the most bang for our buck with this approach most notably in webkit-based browsers and it allows us to target mobile devices for a better user experience on those platforms.

Our sites are ready for moving forward as more features of HTML5 and CSS3 are supported by the major browsers. By the time we're done with our site migration to the new platform, we will have over 500 sites built this way, so it's not just a few

Originally Posted by edgray

I haven't really started exploring HTML5... guess this gives me a little more breathing space.



That's a pretty sensible idea, might start adopting that myself.

It's never too late to start playing with it, the more you do now the less you'll have to learn later on. I've got my own test HTML5 site that I play with.

That said there aren't that many changes to HTML4, different DOCTYPE, a few new tags, and some updates in tag usage - tags still have attributes so all the logic is identical.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

We have been building all of our sites in our CMS using the HTML5 doctype and CSS3 for those browsers that support it. For those that do not, the sites degrade gracefully, as that is our 'duty' as a web development team. We get the most bang for our buck with this approach most notably in webkit-based browsers and it allows us to target mobile devices for a better user experience on those platforms.

Our sites are ready for moving forward as more features of HTML5 and CSS3 are supported by the major browsers. By the time we're done with our site migration to the new platform, we will have over 500 sites built this way, so it's not just a few

You're ahead of the game! I've got a plan in place to start using HTML5 on live sites once IE9 is out of beta.

"Ahead of the game" isn't necessarily good... especially if you get there say FIVE YEARS ahead, and the stadium isn't even built yet! Sure, you can play and practice, but until the game catches up, you have no spectators!

^ well put

Being ahead of the game is really being at the cutting edge, sometimes the world catches up, other times it slopes off in a different direction.

Originally Posted by blue-dreamer

It's never too late to start playing with it, the more you do now the less you'll have to learn later on. I've got my own test HTML5 site that I play with.

That said there aren't that many changes to HTML4, different DOCTYPE, a few new tags, and some updates in tag usage - tags still have attributes so all the logic is identical.

I'll start to investigate!

Originally Posted by LadynRed

We have been building all of our sites in our CMS using the HTML5 doctype and CSS3 for those browsers that support it. For those that do not, the sites degrade gracefully, as that is our 'duty' as a web development team. We get the most bang for our buck with this approach most notably in webkit-based browsers and it allows us to target mobile devices for a better user experience on those platforms.

Nice this is the best I have seen on the forums of those who are already integrateing HTML5, and after seeing this I will now look into how gracefully sites can degrade to determine if I will use it.

Currently I don't agree with HTML5 route of continuing with the two serialization models, instead of just sticking with XML since the web will eventually go semantic. Why would anyone use HTML5 in its un-XML form which allows use of unclosed tags but I am just a fanatic great post though, definately will have me exploring further

http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html

On the whole I think HTML 5 is going to pic up quicker than people think. Browsers are being updated more and more quickly all the time, is is an upward curve not a straight line of progression. Really the question in my mind, is whether its worth learning it at all, or if the web will be on a whole different dimension before it beds in?