For what it’s worth, I deeply agree with Microsoft’s insistence on “same markup“, and appreciate their work in conformance testing. Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch has an overview of how this applies to a particular “HTML5″ showcase example.
Why is this important? Because every instance of willful fragmentation increases content development costs, increases content support costs, and increases content maintenance costs.
This is also why it’s so counterproductive to natter on about “HTML5″. It’s really HTML. We know how to work it, with fifteen years of experience. The dynamic hasn’t changed. You figure out what rendering engines your audience has, and design a good experience for all of them. Consider the emotion the past two years about designing for IE6. Every extra bit of fragmentation hurts.
From a browser vendor’s point of view they can conduct campaigns around “HTML5″ because their concern is only their own browser, sometimes even their own device. But that’s distinct from what creative professionals need to think about.
Talking about “HTML” unifies. Talking about “HTML5″ divides. Think it through. It’s true.
Adobe’s about bridging the different silos. But even if you don’t use the Adobe work, you shouldn’t have to pay a “developers tax” to reach different devices.
Microsoft is to be commended for their “same markup” initiative.
(btw, I think TechCrunch comment sections would greatly benefit from weeding out the anonymous stuff more heavily… if they won’t own their words, why should we?)