The class semantics section appears to be related to the other logos that the w3 has created for them.
Personally, I think its extraneous information. If you came away with knowledge of what the logo looks like (and you should since it took up fully 2/3rds of the first page), then you're set.
As for the rest of your criticism:
> I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means.
Although HTML originally was created to be human readable, and better yet--writable by ordinary people---that isn't how history played out. Hardly anyone writes their websites in bare HTML anymore.
For a time, it seemed that HTML instead would be automatically generated by machines--either a CMS or Dreamweaver/Frontpage and its ilk. This 'dream weaver' age brought us XHTML and its XML inspired draconian parsing requirements.
But slowly, a cadre of individuals was growing who did write HTML by hand and documented the fine differences between browsers, and put pressure upon their makers to change them. These folks were a sect that didn't exist before (and perhaps couldn't have existed in the 90s low-bandwidth websites)...they are web designers.
HTML5, logo and all, looks like the w3's way of trying to capture the attention of web designers because at the moment they have little to no credibility with that group.
I see, when I read the page I thought the intent was to market HTML5 "to the masses". It reminded me of the "use firefox" campains. I guess I'm just not the target audience. Thank you for your insight.
EDIT: I stand by my point regarding the layout though. I think a website promoting HTML5 should try to keep it clear. Trying to mix an informative content with an HTML5 demo page might not be the best idea.
I'd say the new logo is definitely aimed to appease web designers, but I don't think it's fair to say that the W3C has "little to no credibility with [web designers]". Many still have pained memories of designing for older IE and understand the work the W3C has done to usefully eliminate the various fine differences.
More recently there's been a lot more positive feeling toward Safari and Chrome for pushing the implementation of new technologies forward, but it's worth noting that there would probably be a lot less confluence in the new technologies if not for the work the W3C and WaSP did.
Even if outside of that logo they both look really boring.
Personally, I think its extraneous information. If you came away with knowledge of what the logo looks like (and you should since it took up fully 2/3rds of the first page), then you're set.
As for the rest of your criticism:
> I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means.
Although HTML originally was created to be human readable, and better yet--writable by ordinary people---that isn't how history played out. Hardly anyone writes their websites in bare HTML anymore.
For a time, it seemed that HTML instead would be automatically generated by machines--either a CMS or Dreamweaver/Frontpage and its ilk. This 'dream weaver' age brought us XHTML and its XML inspired draconian parsing requirements.
But slowly, a cadre of individuals was growing who did write HTML by hand and documented the fine differences between browsers, and put pressure upon their makers to change them. These folks were a sect that didn't exist before (and perhaps couldn't have existed in the 90s low-bandwidth websites)...they are web designers.
HTML5, logo and all, looks like the w3's way of trying to capture the attention of web designers because at the moment they have little to no credibility with that group.