[onli]

I don't think it's shitting on work to criticize this proposal. It has too many flaws to just be nice, smile and go on - it is the direction I don't want HTML to take, and the direction that already failed.

It's missing the lesson of XHTML. Namespaces and XML-correctness failed, what is wanted is easy to write HTML that is readable and rescueable by the browser if it is invalid. Namespaces are a clusterfuck when you just want to get a html-element with a parser, and they make writing code so much more complicated.

Also, the whole idea of elements that have no meaning for the browser misses the niceness of HTML5. Yes, we have now some elements that have only semantic meaning like the header element, but there is at least the option for browser to help with them. It is a standard set to build readable code, not fully customizable XML with no anchor in the browser. Really appreciated are the elements that use the browser, like audio and video, as you mentioned. That is missing here.

Maybe things like the media element are a good idea. Or maybe not, since it does not hurt to be explicit what you are specifying here, a video or an audio file - talking about semantic.