Hey everyone!

I took a look at some HTML 5 videos and one of them used this as a example.

http://www.youtube.com/html5

It's a mock-up of Youtube created in HTML 5/CSS/Javascript. The <header><nav><article><section><video><footer> are some of the new tags in HTML 5 that this Youtube mock-up is using.

Im certainly going to have to learn HTML 5 at some point soon!

Im certainly going to have to learn HTML 5 at some point soon!

...along with all the workarounds so it will function properly in all the various browsers and versions. :P

Nice! That is really impressive.

Now I really look forward to HTML 5.

-mike

...along with all the workarounds so it will function properly in all the various browsers and versions. :P

Good point :D Well I guess I have a good 2 years to learn it before Internet Explorer will support it.

Good point :D Well I guess I have a good 2 years to learn it before Internet Explorer will support it.

And another 7 years before 80% of people actually switch to that version of IE.

I saw that months ago. Actually the first html5 tests on youtube where last year, with the launch of Chrome which already supports HTML5

The next step is dropping the flash videos support and convert them to the ogg theora code as it seems Flash Videos had a major drawback in quality and its a propietary plugin. Or probably mp4

I'm guessing IE doesn't support it?

I'm guessing IE doesn't support it?

Most likely not :)

Most likely not :)

It is because it's not finalised yet.

It is because it's not finalised yet.

Nope it's just because IE is always behind but so many people use IE as their browser :(.

To my understanding the newest versions of the decent browsers do support HTML5.

Google Chrome
Firefox
Safari
Opera

Nope it's just because IE is always behind but so many people use IE as their browser :(.

To my understanding the newest versions of the decent browsers do support HTML5.

Google Chrome
Firefox
Safari
Opera

Last Call, until it's complete and 100%, I don't expect or want to see it in IE8.

Seems as if they are making HTML5 more specific to certain "sites" now. Also now that Google Wave is preparing for an official launch. But wow, its really agile now :)

I would much rather have seen widespread adoption of CSS3 before bothering with HTML5. I still have all the emails and blog comments between Ian Hickson and I when we sparred a couple rounds over predetermined classes (which I believe he eventually dropped from the standard). I'm still not entirely sold on all of the specific elements that have been created for the purpose of HTML5 either, simply because almost every items can have multiple meanings, and I don't think it's the coding language's job to mix markup with contextual meaning. That is, after all, why W3 gave us classes and IDs in the first place, so we could create our own meaning.

HTML5 has always struck me as being basically an XML language of its own, but without the need to conform to some of XMLs authoring practices, and without total breakage when you present your page as text/xml.

I don't really object to it, so long as other options remain available. Considering the latest of browser releases by every major manufacturer still support quirks mode and transitional markup nearly a decade after they're relevant, I'm not too worried about this.

I would much rather have seen widespread adoption of CSS3 before bothering with HTML5.

Second that.

I'm still not entirely sold on all of the specific elements that have been created for the purpose of HTML5 either, simply because almost every items can have multiple meanings, and I don't think it's the coding language's job to mix markup with contextual meaning. That is, after all, why W3 gave us classes and IDs in the first place, so we could create our own meaning.

IMNSHO, HTML 5 is disgusting. Do we really need every word in the English language (and eventually other languages, since the Internet is global) to have its own tag?
<blog><article><header><title><big><red><bold><subtitle><description><link><picture><movie><dictionary><definition><dirty><smelly><sock><underneath><bedsheet>

Do we really need every word in the English language (and eventually other languages, since the Internet is global) to have its own tag?That's kind of what I've always debated about this standard.

Basically, it's an XML language attempting to gain favor with browser manufacturers. Well...ok. I think the use of "HTML5" as the name for this language is misleading, but I don't really see this as the next natural progression of the HTML standard.

Nope it's just because IE is always behind but so many people use IE as their browser :(.

To my understanding the newest versions of the decent browsers do support HTML5.

Google Chrome
Firefox
Safari
Opera

Didn't they support HTML4 or something first in IE6?

And that's where it went wrong.

Didn't they support HTML4 or something first in IE6?

And that's where it went wrong.

too worried :( either way IE 6 is dying out so I think I will live.

Thanks for the great conversation everyone. I certainly agree with all of your points. I would much rather have full support for CSS 3. I really don't see people using HTML 5 for at least 10 years and even then I’m sure most people will stick to XHTML/CSS.

I also agree the tags are stupid. There is no need for them at all, divs work perfectly.