[arcatek]

I think the title (and domain name) are a bit misleading: that's not HTML6, because it doesn't appear to be endorsed by anything related to the web standards (Mozilla, W3C, etc). That's MyHTML, sure, but not really HTML6.

Funnily enough, at a first glance it looked like a real proposal, then I looked again and it appeared as a joke (I mean ... <html:html> and <form:form> are a bit satirical), and then I looked the repo and there's enough issues to think that it is actually real.

[lmm]

> I think the title (and domain name) are a bit misleading: that's not HTML6, because it doesn't appear to be endorsed by anything related to the web standards (Mozilla, W3C, etc). That's MyHTML, sure, but not really HTML6.

HTML5 was exactly that; just a bunch of implementors (WhatWG) until the W3C eventually endorsed it.

[Havvy]

Except WHATWG is made of many of the same members as the W3C.

[lucideer]

WHATWG is made of a very small subset of the members of W3C. The vast majority of W3C members are not part of WHATWG.

[nailer]

WhatWG are still a lot more diverse than this singular person. 'HTML 6 spec dot com' is misleading.

[javajosh]

I for one was neither mislead by this post nor did I take it as a joke.

I agree with lmm's comment, and clarify a tacit assumption that you're implying: that these ideas are somehow less valid because they aren't associated with a standards body.

It's true you never outright claim that, but you accuse the author first of being misleading, and then of making a joke. In fact this is (clearly) a real, heartfelt attempt to articulate the path one person wants HTML to move in, and I object strongly to any rhetoric that seeks to invalidate this persons views.

[nailer]

The domain is even more misleading: this isn't the 'HTML6 spec', it's one person with little support or peer review (completely unlike whatwg). It's worth flagging the article.