[bastawhiz]

    "HTML6 is conceptually HTML with XML like namespaces."

Well, there goes backwards compatibility. This sounds like a poor attempt to modularize markup. Web components + shadow DOM have already solved this problem. React solves this problem.

    <html:select type="calendar" name="the_calendar" range="10/10/10-10/10/11">

How is that better than

    <input type="date" min="2010-10-10" max="2011-10-10">

in any way shape or form? Hint: it isn't.

    "there is a void that HTML5 has yet to fill and that void is truly semantic markup."

The spec I see here doesn't even satisfy this requirement! It simply adds namespaces to existing elements and changes the syntax for some form elements. For instance:

    <html:media src="images/logo.jpg" type="image">
    vs.
    <img src="images/logo.jpg">

Which is more semantic? Neither. They're identical in every way. Why is it better for the browser to figure out the type rather than using <video> or <audio>? The author makes it seem like this is an advantage, but frankly I can't see it. With HTML5, I get all sorts of methods for controlling media types based on the DOM node. I don't need volume controls on an image. Is it really that hard to decide which tag to use? Your computer can do three things:

* Display something that might move and makes no sound (image)

* Display something that moves and makes sound (video)

* Play sound (audio)

If--as the developer--you have no idea which of these three things your asset is going to do, you've got bigger problems than being burdened by figuring out which tag to use.

IMO, this spec fails to solve a problem that doesn't exist.