[cxr]

Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard.

It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists.

That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their current work the "Living Standard" doesn't erase that fact, any more than the W3C's publication of the third edition of the PNG standard last summer means that earlier editions "don't exist".

[assimpleaspossi]

Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.

[cxr]

This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand.

> Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible.

No shit.

It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" that you very well know exists and have referenced by name in this thread.

If you want to make an argument for the non-existence of HTML6, then fine; you're making a sound, totally defensible argument that no such thing exists. (A strawman, because nobody here—besides you—actually mentioned HTML6, but a verifiably true fact nonetheless.)

But it makes for totally asinine argument for the claim that "There is no HTML5" and that it "doesn't exist". You'll take the W3C's stamp of approval? Great, it's right there—available for review now just as it was an hour ago, or at any other time after October 2014. This is an incontrovertible fact. Feel free to actually engage with this or any of the other facts you have been confronted with, rather than setting unsatisfiable goals like asking for the "current edition" that is "titled HTML5".

[assimpleaspossi]

>>It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5.

I find it interesting to read that you are agreeing with my entire point while insulting me and arguing that I am wrong.

[cxr]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>

----

> There is no HTML5. It's just a buzzword.

> [HTML5]'s not a technical term.

> Telling them HTML5 does exist does even more harm cause it doesn't exist. Telling them it does exist is entirely wrong and is even a false statement

> there is no HTML5 standard

Source: Literally all you, here, in this thread.

If you want to switch gears now and try rewrite the record and say that, actually, what you're really saying and have said all along is that HTML5 is no longer the latest Recommendation, go jump off a bridge.

[assimpleaspossi]

You took things out of context. You aren't following along to what I replied to. The person I replied to said, "...so these days it's actually HTML5." And, in response to "these days", I said there is no HTML5. Which is true and you agree with.

So did the other guy. Thanks to you all for your support for web standards.

[cxr]

Basic truth: if you can't manage to accurately summarize your counterparty's position in a statement that ends with "you agree with <x>" and have that person agree that that's their position rather than feeling compelled to call you out as an intellectually dishonest sack of shit, then they don't actually agree with you, it's more than likely to be an accurate charge against you, and you should knock it off immediately.

> I said there is no HTML5. Which is true and you agree with.

No, I don't.