If you want to stop the abuse of HTML5 you better suggest a good alternative. There's a real need for a term to describe this new wave of web standards and capabilities, HTML5 is as of yet the best we have.
The burden is really the complete opposite here. Certainly someone shouldn't have to defend a definition? That said, I've always considered "client side" a sufficient encompassing terminology.
If we repurpose the term HTML5... what precisely, then, do you propose we call HTML5?
In reality, most developers will stick with HTML4+JS+CSS and use Flash if they want a canvas and timelines.
Most developers will wait for HTML6. No one needs an HTML5 'Movement'. That is ridiculous and shows ignorance in the work professionals do everyday in developing online apps and websites.
> "Most developers will wait for HTML6. No one needs an HTML5 'Movement'."
That doesn't make any sense. When IE6/7 and partially 8 become small enough, most competent developers will use HTML5 technologies in part of their work. Flash will always have its uses, and there will always be developers unwilling to migrate, but that faction is certainly not "most" in the long term.
Also, HTML6 isn't coming. The WHATWG has said as much.
Even if everyone is using new browsers, HTML5 is still not required to do anything that can't already be done using some other method.
They are promoting HTML5 over current industry standards, and so far it's been rocky. Example: Google actively promoting Flash support, but dropping video codecs. It's all promoting what is good for their business. Apple and Microsoft do the same.
I'm already using localstorage (with userdata fallback on IE7) to avoid server roundtrips for data that's only relevant to the client. It's the best technology choice for local state, and it falls under the HTML5 umbrella. Marketing technologies to developers that may be better suited than their current technologies (die, cookies, die) isn't a bad idea.
