@PPK on HTML5 as a marketing Term:

There are several points that merit our attention:

  1. It’s already too late. “HTML5” has taken on meaning as a marketing term and is being used as such — not least by the browser vendors. Any opposition is pointless.
  2. Bruce’s argument would carry more force if the HTML5 spec hadn’t habitually blurred the line by inserting behaviour into what’s supposed to be a structure spec. Besides, any web developer is able to see that the <section> element, a -webkit-transform and Web Workers belong in different layers.
  3. The HTML5 spec is changing constantly, and time and again features are yanked out of it. No doubt that makes sense from a spec-producing point of view, but the problems of spec writers should not dictate what web developers do. We just want to use cool new stuff and sell it to our clients.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t be bothered to once again rise to righteous fury about minor semantic points. Explaining the separation of structure, presentation, and behaviour was very important in its day (hell, I was the first to discuss separation of structure and behaviour back in 2004), but the concept was accepted by the web development community long ago, and I don’t see the use “HTML5” as a broad term contributing to its decline.