Can Some one explain the HTML and HTML5 difference??

Hello!
I am new web designer and i want to some explain with me difference between html and html5. I here about html5 and not use yet. Kindly give me html5 tutorial web site address. Thanks in advance for all friends who want to do this.

 

Google is your friend

But in a nutshell, HTML5 is the updated version with many more features.

A couple of examples of the features are:

Rounded Corners
Gradient Backgrounds

Further reading: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_intro.asp

 

No, that's CSS3... Which while that is slapped under HTML 5's banner alongside the new javascript, that's more to cover up the fact that so far as markup is concerned the emperor has no clothes.

HTML 5 is a bunch of pointless stupid idiotic redundant crap started by a lip service doctype removing any sort of versioning from the specification. It likewise loosens the structural rules so you can sleaze together pages any-old-way undoing the past decade+ of progress STRICT gave us. Most all of the new tags serve no legitimate purpose other than encouraging code bloat, and slapping extra meanings around tags that should already be conveying all you need to know about the page.

This is particularly true of the new ALLEGEDLY semantic structural tags, some of which (like NAV and HEADER) are redundant to just using the existing numbered heading tags properly (H1..H6 - Though of course, nobody seems to bother to do so...)... others of which (like NAV and SECTION) seem to exist to wrap extra meaning around elements that should already provide all the meaning that is needed (like H1...H6, P, HR), or to justify wrapping extra tags around elements for no good reason (NAV, SECTION, etc). A dearly departed friend used to say that the people who wrapped endless pointless tables around everything now just slap endless pointless DIV around things... That was true when he passed two years ago; but today those same people bloat out their page with endless pointless HTML 5 tags slapped around things for no good reason, then try to justify their code bloat by saying "yes but we can now omit a bunch of things in the header that browser makers were too lazy to implement properly" -- oh yes, there's progress for you.

Much less the addition of redundancies (like VIDEO, AUDIO, NAV) undoing the entire point of STRICT (having less tags to make it SIMPLER and more accessible). Lots of people seem to have the notion in their head that STRICT just got rid of presentational stuff, when the majority of what was deprecated or not adopted were just redundant! LIST and MENU were redundant to UL -- APPLET, IMG, and the proprietary EMBED and BGSOUND were redundant to OBJECT... Yes, IMG was originally on the chopping block before the W3C pitched all their plans in the trash and went with the WhatThe****WG's idiotic BS instead. That way we could have choosen what formats we wanted to use (like jpeg2000) instead of being locked into the browser makers favorite pet codecs, and only Microsoft dragging their heels on implementing it properly prevented this... Now EMBED is allowed in, and the redundant AUDIO/VIDEO has only further fractured the already confusing mess of file formats -- JUST so the browser makers can each pimp their favorite pet codec and to hell with what other browser makers are implementing.

It seems entirely crafted for the people who over the past 14 years have been sleazing out HTML 3.2 and slapping a Tranny doctype on top of it... Now they get to slap 5's lip service on it while still crapping out their half-assed 1990's style code. It sure as shine-ola doesn't seem to have been crafted for anyone who actually embraced HTML 4 STRICT or XHTML 1.0 STRICT, separation of presentation from content, accessibility, minimalism, or any of the other improved sitebuilding methods.

Which is why I still cannot fathom how anybody could be DUMB ENOUGH to see merit in it's use, and part of why I have no plans to migrate past XHTML 1.0 STRICT for the time being. It'll be cute when HTML 6 comes along and deprecates 99% of the new crap added in 5, since it literally seems to be the new HTML 3.2 / 4 Tranny.

 

Very interesting insights. I enjoyed the read and your signature statement as well. I myself and still utilizing XHTML, however traditional standards. As horrible as it is to acknowledge such accusations of the coding world I must admit to its truth. I commend you.

 

html 5 is the new version of html .The features of HTML5 are:-
1)The <canvas> element for 2D drawing
2)Support for local storage
3) New content-specific elements, like <article>, <footer>, <header>, <nav>, <section>
4)New form controls, like calendar, date, time, email, url, searchand the best use of html5 are to make the website for mobile application.

 

Heh, 'features'...

Which is 100% reliant on javascript, meaning there's no legitimate reason for it to even HAVE a tag or any business in a markup specification. (and since it's reliant on js, I would generate that tag IN the js, meaning you could add it to older doctypes using feature detection)

100% reliant upon javascript meaning it has no business in a markup specification.

Which are redundant/pointless compared to proper use of the existing tags, and amounts to wrapping extra meaning around elements that should already be conveying all the meaning you need. Go down this road, and in ten years we'll be wrapping every blasted word in it's own tag. The content needs to stand on it's own merits sooner or later.

The ONLY parts of the specification that shows ANY merit, but to be frank most of them are there to make up for poorly written forms in the first place or as substitutes for javascript nonsense that doesn't belong on a website in the first place... much less that you still have to go through and re-check them server side, and that much of that stems from this oddball whackjob paranoia of "pageloads are evil".

That's CSS3, NOT markup, and again has no business in a markup specification... also there's no reason you can't use that CSS3 with older doctypes to make the nice responsive layouts for mobile.

Which is the REAL reason CSS3 and the new javascripted stuff is slapped under HTML 5's banner -- as without them there's nothing of real value in it.

 

you seem so angry deathshadow, but in truth you seriously don't like the syntax simplification of 5? You'd prefer keep using markup in ways that it wasn't intended like in 4.01? Or maybe you liked defining types? All in all I'd say html5 is a net profit, they stripped a bunch of useless crap and provided us with tags we've been faking for years making the overall markup more semantic and readable. You can cry about javascript encroaching on the specification but let's get real, no one writes real life sites without implementing html, css and javascript so at least you can be happy that the consortium gives us real javascript marriage in the syntax now instead of the the hack and slash way it used to be implemented. I get that you're a purist but I just don't understand what there is to dislike about de-cluttering and refining a seriously dated specification. Also your signature made me lol but calm your jQuery hate

 

HTML5 doesn't strike me as a new version of HTML so much as a banner slapped across a collection of emerging technologies, a lot of which are honestly, pretty cool.

My favorite part: <!doctype>. Now that is easy to remember. Although honestly, I could deal with <!doctype html5.strict>, <!doctype html5.trans>, or anything else that doesn't involve having to copy/paste or memorize two URLs every time I wanted to write a page.

All that aside, I have trouble getting on board with the 'semantics' side of it. Ostensibly it tries to be about the content by promoting the use of semantically correct markup. And ultimately this may yet be the case. But as HTML5 is a still-developing standard, right now it's just the cause of a ton of confusion. In short, nobody seems to really "know" how to properly use all the new semantic tags. It's just kind of a mess right now.

 

DOCTYPE declaration is the main difference between HTML and HTML5. HTML is a markup language.In HTML5 Audio and video are integral part of HTML5 and vector graphics also integral part of HTML5. In HTML vector graphics is possible with other technologies such as silverlight, flash.

 

i agree with scottlpool2003..use this link for more information : w3schools.com/html/html5_intro.asp

 

Embrace the hate -- hate can be as much or even more of a motivator for good than any status quo back-slapping hugfest around a drum circle; status quo accomplishes NOTHING.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

WHAT SIMPLIFICATION? Letting people sleaze together code any old way with loosened/meaningless structural rules that take the WORST of HTML 3.2 and 4 tranny, and make it acceptable practice? Admittedly, the majority of people just sleaze out HTML 3.2 and slap 4 tranny on it anyways, but 5 basically seems to be throwing up one's arms in the air, shrugging the shoulders and saying "oh well", instead of actually addressing real problems. WORSE, it introduces all new problems.

When coders can't be bothered to use the tags we already have correctly, throwing more tags in the mix is NOT the answer!

That's a funny statement, since 4 Strict was supposed to be a return to the intent and point of HTML 2 -- something HTML 3.2 with all it's presentational idiocy forced into the specification by the browser war between Nyetscape and Internet Exploder pissing all over said intent; saying what things are and letting what they look like be ENTIRELY up to the user agent, letting the UA customize output to the capabilities of the device it's on.

Not even sure what you mean by that... since HTML doesn't have typecasting, structures or defines...

How so? Tags redundant to existing tags? What exactly have they stripped out? (the answer is nothing, they've put a bunch of crap in that has no business in there though!)... as to semantic and readable, I have to call BS on that. Most of the new tags are NOT semantic no matter how much they try to tell us, or are redundant to existing tags if people would bother using them correctly.... and if browser makers would get off their asses and implement them properly. Naturally that's another of my 'issues' with 5 and CSS3... browser makers going through and making all the gee ain't it neat flash BS in the new specs, when they have decade and a half old gaps in the previous specifications. (Bugzilla 915 comes to mind...)

I don't get where the new stuff is any improvement in that department -- AT ALL. Allowing the specifications to be separate would allow new specifications to supplant old ones. It's actually why SCRIPT had a language attribute, replaced by the TYPE attribute -- since originally we were supposed to be able to extend the browsers with other languages besides JS. (naturally, nobody remembers 'orange' since it only worked via a activeX plugin).

The clear separation of scripting from markup from style is a vast improvement that few people seem to have taken the time to pull their heads out of 1997's backside and bother learning -- more the shame that it's basically being drawn and quartered, disemboweled and burned at the stake, just so the W3C can piss on it's ashes.

I fail to see how throwing redundant and pointless extra tags into it, allowing in a bunch of stuff that was deprecated or not adopted into the specification in to suddenly be valid, loosening the structural rules to the point of making validation meaningless is "de-cluttering", much less refinement.

But as I've said a dozen times, "HTML 5 is the future? Huh, looks more like 1997 to me!"

No! **** jquery and the open source it rode in on. It's pointless bloated bull that is mostly used to put things on websites that to be frank, have no malfing business on websites!!! I have yet to see a website use jquery that didn't destroy it's usefulness with pointless wasteful "gee ain't it neat" bull... same goes for most of the AJAX asshattery that is now making it so you can't even properly middle click of forward/back navigate websites properly. Oh, but it's there to enhance the user experience -- RIGHT. See how AJAX and javascript idiocy have destroyed the usefulness of most every webmail service to the point I've gone back to using mail clients...

Something that five years ago I could have sworn would go the way of the dodo in favor of webmail. Silly me.

It's ok though, you combine this new attitude of sleaze it out with off the shelf parts without bothering to understand the underlying tech with the newfound 'advertising can pay for things' idiocy, and it's only a matter of time before the sick Web 2.0 buzzword gets replaced by DotComBust 2.0

 

A lot of sour babblers are only ignorant towards the new technologies that HTML5 provides, hence, they babble ungratefully based on their limited knowledge and that alone. The only way I take them seriously is if they show me a better markup language of their own, hmm . Seems like some people are butthurt that technology is making website creation simpler through removal of strict rules, simpler markup et al.... they describe such ease as being "sleazy". Just look at their signatures and you'll see they have great hate towards technology that makes stuff easier. I fail to find just one reason why these new technologies would upset them. So what if they do a sleazy job. How does it affect you if you're not using it? I guess they feel threatened that this would put a dent in their freelance jobs making them have to get a "real job" cuz every Tom, Dick and Harry can make his/her own website.

However, people like me think outside the box and look at the positive side of things and how I can leverage these positive to put myself ahead of the pack. Survival of the fittest. Bitches will bitch.

Look out, a user is about to flame me with uber long posts. Flame coat on

 

The most popular website for learning HTML 5 (and HTML) : w3schools.com

 

Funny guy -- I'll try to keep it short.

Don't have to make a new one when the official 'new one' is inferior to what already existed if people would get their heads out of 1997's arse and actually use it, and if browser makers would get off their posteriors to actually implement it completely! NAV is redundant to header navigation (admittedly, screen readers, Opera and Amaya are the only ones who got off their asses and actually implemented it properly), SECTION is redundant to numbered headings and horizontal rules (see NAV), ASIDE is either so limited in scope as to be akin to what makes ADDRESS useless <aside>the only semantic meaning being a literary aside</aside> or how people are actually using it -- presentational garbage akin to the long deprecated CENTER tag. ARTICLE is cute, but kinda pointless and we already have people slapping it around everything any old way like they do with headings and paragraphs... shall I go on?

Again, when the majority of people STILL crapping out HTML 3.2 and slapping 4 tranny on it skip right past STRICT and into 5's lip-service cannot be bothered to use more than half the tags we have properly (TABLE, numbered headings, META's, LINK[media]) if at all (FIELDSET, LABEL, LEGEND, CAPTION, TH, BLOCKQUOTE, CITE) -- throwing more tags at it is NOT the answer. It completely forgets the lessons of 3.2 and why 4 STRICT was made at all -- not just removing presentational tags, but also redundant tags like LIST, DIR, MENU, APPLET, etc, etc... and not adopting proprietary tags and attributes that were also redundant like EMBED, BGSOUND, LAYER, SPACER, etc, etc...

I fail to see how new tags that are redundant to existing ones results in simpler markup -- or how loosening the rules to let people mix and match any old way results in making site creation "simpler".

Clear easy to follow rules are what makes things simpler! Loosening them NEVER results in simpler; not for users, not for developers, and not for the people making what it runs on either! There seems to be this noodle doodle idea that anarchy is simpler -- it isn't.

Depends on your definition of 'easier' -- if by easier you mean breaking conventional navigation, increasing page-load speeds, adding stupid animated nonsense that distracts from actually getting to the CONTENT of a page, then sure.

Effects me every time I try to visit a website that's an accessibility train wreck, or websites I used to frequent that I now have to manually neuter the code with things like noscript, user.js and user.css just to even TRY to use. (I list these forums as one of those)... How sites are becoming fat slow train wrecks that are less useful than they were a decade ago. Look at the pointless code bloat and gee ain't it neat BS that makes vBull 4 less pleasant to use than phpBB was at the peak of it's vulnerabilities circa "nevernosanity" a decade ago... Look at how amazon has pissed itself so bad that I can't even order anything from their site anymore without running a script blocker! Look at how the art chik-fil-a's have turned the web into an inaccessible train wreck of fixed widths, absurdly undersized fixed metric fonts, illegible color contrasts, and half a megabyte page-loads spanning hundreds of files just to deliver less than 2k of actual content.

Again, HTML 5 doesn't look like the future to me, it looks like the WORST of HTML 3.2 resurrected either out of ignorance, forgetfulness, or just plain incompetence.

P.S. and way off topic -- You know the domain in your siggy isn't resolving anywhere, right?

 

Yup I let that domain name go. I hopped onto a new money train where the pastures are greener but thanks for the reminder to remove/change it.

Of course new tags presented in HTML5 are redundant in the sense that they add no major change to the markup apart from being just another additional tag added, but don't bring browsers into the mix here. HTML5 has nothing to do with each individual browser. Their slothfulness towards bringing their browsers up to date to render the current technology has nothing to do with HTML5's progress - especially IE who loves being fashionably late.

HTML5's new tags ARE INDEED an advancement. I don't see how someone can see it otherwise. Maybe it wasn't the major changes you expected to see, but that still doesn't make it any less of an advancement, right? It definitely makes the markup more readable especially for development, and I can also see that in the future to come, these tags are going to play a very important role in other areas for example, Search Engine Optimization, amongst others. Oh of course you didn't realize that, did you? That's what I meant when I said think outside the box. I'm seeing how these new additions are going to be integrated into other technologies.

Dude, the way you view HTML5, I can tell you've only touch a tip of the iceberg. There are 'CMSes' that are currently changing their whole internal structure to leverage the full power of HTML5, and that doesn't only include the new tags which you seem to be most knowledgeable about when it comes to HTML5.

Statements like:
the only thing you can learn from jquery is how not to learn Javascript.
comes across as very ungrateful to me. Everything has it's negatives, but being this sour can only keep YOU back from looking past these downfalls and realizing that development wise, the positives far outweigh the negatives.... a realization that can save you lots of time, money while keeping you ahead of the pack.

 

HTML5 is just new version of HTML.It is the more advanced and new features with improve it.

 

I believe html5 is the introduction to a new age of html markup and that it will be the building block of future markup releases. I too am heartbroken and furious that so many people argue about many browsers not supporting html5 (mostly referencing IE). Honestly, who cares about IE and the slowness of their developers. From a webmaster's perspective, the few who still use IE and the fewer who use IE and haven't upgraded to the latest browsers aren't my target audience anyways, so I could care less about them.

See any trends? What should YOU focus on?
www . w3schools . com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

On a side note though, I do believe that strict standards should be only standard in existence.

 

WHAT ADVANCEMENTS?!? Undoing everything STRICT was supposed to be about and throwing the past DECADE of advances in site building methodologies in the trash is an advancement?!? I don't see how/where/why anyone sees any form of advancements in it...

I don't get that either -- to me it's just the people who slapped endless single TD tables around things for nothing that went on to slap extra DIV and P around elements for nothing now just slap the HTML 5 tags around elements for, well... nothing. Table around a menu to <div id="nav"> around a UL to <NAV> around a UL, net change zero, it's still an extra pointless wrapper used out of ignorance on how UL's a perfectly good block level container unto itself. Go ahead, use nothing but H1 on a page because you're using SECTION instead of DIV, adding extra semantics and breaking anything resembling sane header navigation because people are too lazy or stupid to use numbered headings correctly...

Where's the improvement again?

Honestly, bullcookies. Sooner or later the CONTENT has to be able to stand on it's own, PARTICULARLY for search. There are ZERO improvements in SEO offerred by these new tags that cannot and/or could not be done with what 4 Strict offers!

If by that you mean doubling their code size for NO LEGITIMATE improvements or functionality. "Leveraging the full power"?!? WHAT POWER? I actually sat down two years ago and read the new spec beginning to end and you know what? It's pointless bloated extra rubbish that truly is the WORST of HTML 3.2 come to fruition. It literally seems to have been created to sell more books, let professional lecturers (a bigger bunch of scumballs you'll not find outside a courtroom or seat of power) put more buns in seats, and give marketing scammers a new sick buzzword to sell the ignorant on akin to "web 2.0". All the REAL useful stuff in "HTML 5" are actually either javascript CSS3 or Aria roles, and there's little reason you can't just use those on 4 Strict / X1.0 Strict... without those, HTML 5 is a empty shell of pointless nonsense that literally undoes everything we've had for progress since STRICT was introduced.

Ever seen the musical "1776"? My reaction to that is akin to John Adams reaction to the "benefits of being part of one of the greatest nations on the earth".

"BENEFITS? What Benefits? Crippling taxes, cruel repressions, abolished rights?"

Needlessly complex markup, pitching the past decade and a halfs progress in coding techniques in the trash, further fragmenting media delivery just to support vendor lock-in, and further complicating an already needlessly complex markup language for me outweighs any alleged benefits -- of which to be brutally frank I see NONE. Can you like... say... List some? Like legitimate ones? Real ones, not just "Oh it will help with ____" -- because I HEAR that being said a whole lot, and after reading up on it the only question I keep coming back to is "HOW?!?"

Unless of course you mean all the things that have NOTHING to do with markup, and as such have ZERO business in a markup specification -- Like CSS3, the new Javascript stuff, Aria Roles, etc, etc, etc... AKA stuff that can be used just fine with previous markup specs. I MIGHT be tempted to agree on the form stuff, but most of that is for idiotic rubbish that usually leaves me going "Oh for **** sake just give it a label" (placeholder) or "For **** sake just let me type it in" (all the fancy inheriting SELECT garbage). In other words all the crap that people piss all over forms with using javascript to make them useless, now is in the HTML spec. GREAT.

Jquery is the same idiocy -- throwing more code at a non-issue; most of the 'useful' stuff done with it would be less code without the library (like accordion scripts where 4k of uncompressed non-jq code is more functional than 12k of jq based, which then needs the library) and most everything else is broken, annoying asshattery that has no malfing business on a website in the first place.

Frameworks in interpreted languages -- mein gott, don't they teach people ANYTHING anymore?!? I mean seriously, I've not seen anything that stupid in the IT world since developers used to charge by the K-LOC. (and then padded every other line with a comment to double what the project cost)

 

U cannot be serious right? IE ships with Windows and is the default and ONLY browser of a fresh windows installation. As web developers, we would know that IE is not the best of browsers, but the average internet surfer uses the browser their computer came with. They probably don't know that the others are better, or they probably don't even know there are others to begin with!!! Heck, my grandma doesn't even know what is a browser!!! She just turns on the PC and knows clicking the "e" icon will allow u to browse the web (which is the only browser her windows PC shipped with btw)!! Same for every other member of my family hadn't I downloaded Chrome for them. If you don't cater for IE, you're leaving behind a HUGEEEE portion of the web. How can you not cater for those who use IE?? That's crazy. I'll understand if you don't cater for those who haven't upgraded, but there are millions of users who are not too computer literate and would only trust surfing using a browser their computer came with cause they think it is "safer" and probably not even concerned that there are others. They don't even know the term "browser".

Even workplaces set up their systems so that IE is the only browser that is accessible. In fact, most work places that use windows, only use the software that was shipped with windows for the same reason - "security". U must be crazy to leave one third of the internet out.

 

WRONG

IE looses a small percentage of users every year. A decade ago IE was the most popular browser out (having over 80% of the market), however every year they loose a percentage of users. Currently they don't even hold one fifth of the browser market. FF and Chrome are taking over. As I said in my above post, it depends on the target audience for your website which browser you build for (even though a web developer should be compatible with all major browsers). I am a webhost and my target market is not the population that "only knows to click the E" to get them one the web. Clearly, they are never going to run their own website. Thus, I am not too worried about those visitors, however another webmaster may be.

You should clearly do some research on current statistical browser usage so you can get to know the downfall of IE a little better.