W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
mashable.com
W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#2Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#3Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#4Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#5Is it me or are some words missing in the 2nd paragraph? It makes it hard to follow the article.
Apparently the writer is quoting an official, but to find who he is quoting you have to click on the link "today". So you naturally think "today" is probably a link to the event, so it ends up being an article with an unnamed quote.
Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#6Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#7Is it me or are some words missing in the 2nd paragraph? It makes it hard to follow the article.
Bad markup being the culprit - somewhat ironically.
Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#8Who are these officials that approve of Flash and Silverlight as web technologies superior to HTML5? I've never heard of a Flash working group at the W3C. The closest I found is someone asking for W3C involvement in 2008:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/311802/w3c-involvement-in...
Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#9Re: W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web
#10The articles cites an "official" of the W3C and not the name of a person. Was it someone of important such as Ian Hickson or was it just some bureaucrat or intern?
Who made these statements matters greatly and defines the line between news and non-news. This is complete non-news unless it was a person highly involved with defining or implementing the spec.
The fact that the author cited Silverlight smells very fishy to me.
This title and the entire article is just pure unadulterated linkbait.