Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Graphics Programming Upgrades

Google Introduces HTML 5.1 Tag To Chrome 94

Posted by timothy
from the tagging-wars-ensue dept.
darthcamaro (735685) writes "Forget about HTML5, that's already passe — Google is already moving on to HTML5.1 support for the upcoming Chrome 38 release. Currently only a beta, one of the biggest things that web developers will notice is the use of the new "picture" tag which is a container for multiple image sizes/formats. Bottom line is it's a new way to think about the "IMG" tag that has existed since the first HTML spec."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Introduces HTML 5.1 Tag To Chrome

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2014 @11:57PM (#47789465)

    So it's in the guise of "standardisation", except in name only. There is no standard is the new standard.

    And it does mean you need to keep on updating your web browser or you get shut out of steadily ever more websites that used to work just fine with the exact same browser last week. It is in fact fashionable to look at user agents and not merely complain, no, simply present a "we don't like your browser, fuck you" page without so much as contact information to the website owners or anything.

    This includes websites that present little more than text with illustrations. That's right, among the websites that are harshly shutting out browsers for not having quite enough of this new html5 sauce are those that could've done perfectly well with just the features html3 provides. If this is called progress, you can keep it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2014 @04:12AM (#47790009)

    A good thing? Hardly. The idea of standardisation is that we don't deliberately break everybody's browser every other week. The W3C always was near-useless, but this bunch is worse than useless, except for the select few that would have the very latest browser at any given point in time anyway. The rest, the vast majority, is now expending a lot of work just to prevent getting shutting out, but isn't getting nearly enough return on investment on this.

    Much like how the linux bunch "really need" replacements for things that work just fine elsewhere, fail to look what's already there, and start to reinvent well-established wheels with gay abandon, breaking compatability with everybody else down to applications becoming linux-only after having run fine elsewhere for ages. There really is no excuse, but that doesn't stop the gay blades running the show.

    This meritocracy isn't. It's just crazy. We need to speak up more often. Then again, we can't. The WHATWG is mostly a big vendor vehicle. End-users aren't invited, they're expected to shut up and watch advertisements.

  • by znrt (2424692) on Saturday August 30, 2014 @06:07AM (#47790225)

    discussed since responsive web design had an acronym.

    always wondered what idiot first chose "responsive" to brand that "dynamic layout" thing, which is absolute semantic nonsense but just stuck because who cares about semantics nowadays (because who could resist getting fancy words thrown at!). any clue?

    doesn't surprise me that we now have "responsive" labelled webapps that are actually less responsive than ever.

  • Re:5.1? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MatthiasF (1853064) on Saturday August 30, 2014 @11:59AM (#47791291)
    Microsoft is not a part of WHATWG. They have cooperated with it's members, but are not adhering to the standard. And for good reason it seems, since they avoided the CANVAS specs worried that items in it were not royalty-free and sure enough Apple patented it and numerous other issues.

    WHATWG is just as incompetent as W3C. The only way to reach a reasonable standard is for dialog and not bullying. Google has done nothing but bully over the last five years, making WHATWG more dangerous than helpful. Chrome itself has numerous behaviors that are counter-productive specifically to differentiate itself and cause a divide instead of a method of progress.

    I firmly believe that those who are deciding these standards should be working as independant contractors, following an ethos and not being paid directly by any one player. Otherwise, there seems to be a lot of bias going on because so many rely on Google (from advertisements or direct payments), and we should not be trusting Google if we want an Internet without massive invasions of privacy.

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...