Talk:HTML5

"HTML5 on its own cannot be used for animation"

So, this statement is completely, on its face, false. An <img> tag that pulls in a .gif is using HTML5 for animation, as is any <video> tag. I know this is semantics, but the statement, and the other one later in the document that says that same thing, definitely need to be reworded so as to make some amount of sense. 74.67.17.69 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with HTML5 article

Page HTML5 article Is Closely Related to HTML5 Dudel250 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So "closely related" is reason to merge?

I can see reason to rename HTML5 article to a clearer name (Article element would be our convention so far), to keep it or even to delete it if we don't consider that this new element in isolation meets WP:N. However I see nothing in the middle supporting a merge: it's either worth writing about because the element warrants discussion, or it's a name listed in HTML5 and no more. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions I will think about getting rid of it under CSD A10 or moving it to a new name. Could someone get rid of the merge tags Thanks! Dudel250 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Finished moveing Dudel250 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Digital Restriction Management

The links in the DRM Section go to the Defective by design page - I think going to the Digital Rights Management page may be better, as it better explains the aim. Know this could be a contentious move, so wanted to flag it before doing anything 213.120.104.147 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. --Racklever (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy Chart

As a red/green color blind individual, the taxonomy chart under the New APIs section is unreadable. I recommend at least editing the image to use more contrasted colors so color blind folks can read it.

74.10.72.66 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)