Favstar gets even better if you sign in.
Here's why signing in is good for you.
W3C staff refuses to use HTML5 to publish the HTML5 spec. I couldn't come up with better symbolism for the W3C's fear of change if I tried.
@diveintomark actually as of a few days ago, the XHTML 1.0 DOCTYPE is conforming text/html HTML5 too (though you get a warning). :-)
I've many many changes to HTML5 that I didn't like, @mark_a_morgan -- see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0714.html
@kidehen Does this help? http://bit.ly/M2KaS
http://www.whatwg.org/html5#microdata
Wow if I'd known that removing Ogg from the HTML5 spec would get us that many new subscribers, I'd have done it years ago.
@johnallsopp (of course our goal was to make the Web better, not use fake controversy to drive traffic to our site to sell books, so...)
@tobie @robhawkes @jaffathecake The real problem is it was made for new apps that only have one "index.html" and it doesn't fit legacy apps.
@jtbartoli What do you mean by "NOT have html5"? HTML is HTML. There's no separate and distinct "HTML5".
@bedatadriven Relying on a single-vendor tech is always risky, whether it's a failed Web tech like WebSQL or a proprietary one like Flash.
@pornelski Take part in the debate! http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-January/024816.html
@johnallsopp Hopefully http://tinyurl.com/ishtml5 and http://tinyurl.com/htmlver can help. E-mail me if it's still confusing.
@cwilso The WHATWG one is more like the "director's cut" and the HTMLWG more like the "studio cut" (to use marcos' term), but that's all.
@johnallsopp (note that HTML5 started out at the WHATWG, so it's been a WHATWG spec for longer than a W3C spec)
@kplawver dude by that rule our w3c mailing lists are gonna get remarkably quiet.
someone should explain to @kevinmarks the difference between blogs and microblogs :-P
Stats can't be shown as @Hixie has never signed in to Favstar.
