What To Expect From HTML5 272
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5, outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML — one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight. Among the most eagerly anticipated additions to HTML5 are new elements and APIs that allow content authors to create rich media using nothing more than standards-based HTML. The standard also introduces browser-based application caches, which enable Web apps to store information on the client device. 'But for all of HTML5's new features, users shouldn't expect plug-ins to disappear overnight. The Web has a long history of many competing technologies and media formats, and the inertia of that legacy will be difficult to overcome. It may yet be many years before a pure-HTML5 browser will be able to match the capabilities of today's patchwork clients,' McAllister writes. 'In the end, browser market share may be the most significant hurdle for developers interested in making the most of HTML5. Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.'"
Thank you Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Vector animation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In order that HTML 5 may replace Flash on Newgrounds.com, what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series?
You might try Adobe Illustrator paired with Ikivo Animator, that's what Adobe recommends anyway.
Re:Vector animation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen these before, and "please e-mail sales" in lieu of a base price usually turns out to be code-word for "if you have to ask, you can't afford it".
Re:Vector animation? (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen these before, and "please e-mail sales" in lieu of a base price usually turns out to be code-word for "if you have to ask, you can't afford it".
According to a review in MacUser, it's £199+VAT (=~ $350 US), or at least that was the price for v1.1 (I think there may have been a few updates since then).
Re:Vector animation? (Score:5, Interesting)
no, no, no, you're getting this all wrong - this isn't about what people want or what actually happens in the real world!
it's about a type of consumer so brainwashed they actually believe that apple are a real force for good, and that anything that stands in the way of their favorite company's marketing machine is sheer anathema.
oh and not forgetting the stunted ideologue who will sing the praises of html5, knowing full well it won't amount to squat. who could forget them around here!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Vector animation? (Score:4, Informative)
Just use anything with SVG support.
And CSS3 has native support for animation control, quite powerful control at that.
Please point me to CSS3's support for interpolation between SVG keyframes. Then please point me to the graphical timeline editor for CSS3 animation. Flash has had both since before it had ActionScript.
The only thing that it doesn't have great support for yet is some of the things that people are used to with Flash development. Preloaders are one thing
HTML5 has onload. Just set the animation to start once all your assets' onload events have fired.
Of course, considering how most of the imagery is usually vectors in Flash games, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
SVG is bloated unless you gzip it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't say learning is the problem, not wanting to buy or pirate Adobe products is the issue.
Re:Er... standing up? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not wanting to buy / pirate is a symptom of a larger issue with professional computer users in general. There are those who are willing to pay for tools that will get the job done, and there are those who won't. Those are willing to do so, do so. Those who aren't will constantly seek alternatives and seemingly never learn the adage that, "You get what you pay for."
Some people don't seem to understand that the largest incentive to introduce new technologies is to make money. There is money to be made in making people's lives easier, or allowing people to accomplish tasks. Adobe has Flash. Microsoft has Windows. Neither of them are necessarily the "best" way of doing things. None the less they get the job done to a certain extent.
In the context of HTML5, people are going to have to recreate Flash like functionality. The first few attempts will probably suck or be "feature incomplete". What is the financial incentive to reproduce Flash like functionality in HTML5? In the long term people can save money by not having to use Adobe Flash. In the near to short term, what is the benefit? Who is going to come up with the Flash killer out of the goodness and kindness of their heart?
Re:Er... standing up? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Er... standing up? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Er... standing up? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thank you Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I think it has less to do with Apple standing up than it does with the fact that Flash didn't scale to mobile devices well.
Before the iPhone mobile friendly sites where few and far between. Once the iPhone started selling great guns more and more people moved to have their sites be mobile friendly.
Of course Apple isn't going to support Thedora so with that desision they are pushing HTML5 to be more proprietary than it could have been.
Of course Apple's choice is probably motivated by the fact that they already have hardware support for h.264 in their devices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they choose to support a codec that is a rival (theora) to one in which they hold patents (H.264)?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And? Even at one patent that are still heavily invested in H.264, MP4 (which they also hold patents on) and AAC. I see no good reason for them financially to drop all those years of investments in this formats to go to Ogg and Theora.
Re:Thank you Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Big thanks to Apple for standing up to the Flash juggernaut and showing the world we could live without it, thereby paving the way for HTML 5.
And big thanks to Google for creating a non-Flash dependent version of YouTube to help Apple do it, and starting to move YouTube away from Flash in general.
...Now help standardize on non-proprietary codecs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not kid ourselves. Apple isn't trying to pull people away from Flash because they're big-hearted. They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.
If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public
Re: (Score:2)
My guess as to why Apple doesn't support Ogg Theora in Safari is because their mobile devices already have hardware support for H.264. So on Apple's mobile hardware, H.264 video would drastically outperform Ogg.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That and Apple is a holder of H.264 and MP4 patents.
Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (Score:4, Insightful)
They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.
This is so wrong it's not even funny. MPEG LA doesn't own the H.264 patents. MPEG LA is a firm that licenses the patent pool to H.264 and numerous other technologies.
If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.
Since Apple owns patents to H.264 I doubt you are going to see them doing either.
In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?
Why are you surprised by this? Apple is a patent holder to H.264. Why would they want to support a video codec that is a rival to a technology in which they hold patents?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one said that Apple was big-hearted. But let's face it. Flash is a steaming pile. Very recently, it's been implicated as the cause of most OS X crashes, as well as as the best vector of attack for web malware. It's installed on almost every computer that surfs the web. It's a huge resource hog, and incidentally, most flash video players are just streaming down h.264.
Now last I'd heard, Microsoft had no intention of supporting video tags in IE. Firefox can't support h.264 (though a plugin could.) B
Re: (Score:2)
OT: safari does support some emacs key bindings:
see for example http://www.danrodney.com/mac/ [danrodney.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty neat. My fingers aren't limber enough to use emacs, though :)
Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (Score:2)
They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.
How is Apple going to be the gateway for all H264 content?
If Apple really had our best interests at heart, they would be either 1) pushing Ogg Theora as a baseline video standard, or 2) working to release H.264 into the public domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.
Well I don't think they have control of the H264 patents, so I'm not sure they can do much to force it into the public domain. As for Ogg Theora, it's necessary to ask the question, why didn't Apple use it as their format of choice? There may be various kinds of reasons.
In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?
Well I'm not sure what you mean by "by deliberate choice". Apple doesn't include a codec for Ogg in Quicktime by default, but you can download the codec from Xiph and install it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now let's be fair here - Theora isn't that good. It's XviD-standard, so it's, well, it's okay, but in terms of a drop-in replacement for H.264 for Youtube it does not cut the mustard.
And Nokia has asserted it has submarine patents on it, and hasn't actually promised not to enforce them (we'd bitterly hate it if it did, given the involvement it's had in things like Maemo and QT, but still). Given that, and that Apple and Nokia are now competitors, Apple do not want to risk Theora. That's the reason why.
Meanw
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is not significantly worse either. h.264 has a deadline set for when free use ends. That deadline may or may not be pushed back and the royalties may or may not be extortionate. By using Theora, you don't have to worry about that.
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/02/royalty-free-codec-still-needed-despite-no-cost-h264-license.ars
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, big thanks to Apple for preventing anything capable of interpreting arbitrary scripts to be installed or run on the iPhone so they can ensure that any apps (and especially games) used on the device came from their app store.
Don't get me wrong I don't condemn them for it, but they are most certainly not doing it to be altruistic, or for the good of the Internet as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the only one who does. You'll have to make do with XHTML5
They're skipping 2, 3, and 4 (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want HTML5. I want XHTML2. Get to work on this now.
HTML5 has two syntaxes [w3.org]: SGML-style "HTML Syntax" (Content-type: text/html) and XML (Content-type: application/xhtml+xml). The latter is called XHTML5, and 5 is greater than 2.
What to except (Score:2, Insightful)
You can expect inconsistent implementations; same as it ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
right.
HTML 5 is a half-ass hacked attempt to fix the web without breaking backwards compatibility. XHTML 2 was a better specification going forwards, one of the big reasons for that was the specification requires a consistent DOM model.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you underestimate the "without breaking backwards compatibility" part of this.
XHTML2 was pretty much designed to not work with any existing web infrastructure (either existing content or existing browsers). If you think a parallel web built from the ground up is the way to go, feel free to work on it, but the network effects involved make it a pretty risky prospect.
Re:What to except (Score:4, Interesting)
Using video when object with just a mime type and filename doesn't break backwards compatibility?
Given that intentional spite of IE (video is otherwise redundant and has not brought about a standard format), along with canvas and the codification of bad SGML parsing, I'm not convinced we should celebrate HTML5's failure (or FAIL, as people who can't type lowercase seven-letter words say now). I won't touch it.
I'll keep using XHTML 1.0 and pretend HTML5 and XHTML 1.1 (with its invalid DTDs and such) never existed, tyvm.
HTML5 (Score:2, Interesting)
I won't touch it until Ian Hickson either gets his head out from his orifice or he steps down as the lead dev. I know some of what's going on (from list archives and discussions with at least one of the main devs on the HTML5 WG list) and he's doing his best to kill HTML 5 and standards based design completely.
Re:HTML5 (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that Hickson is more of a bane than a boon, but he's not trying to kill all of standards based design, he's just trying to kill the best parts of it. Developers do want XML compliance. If they would just drop the HTML5 tag soup and enforce XHTML5, I would have much less against this mess.
That, and I still believe Chris Wilson is Microsoft's trojan horse.
Re: (Score:2)
If they would just drop the HTML5 tag soup and enforce XHTML5, I would have much less against this mess.
There's already a language designed to do what you want - it's called XHTML2.
Have fun convincing browsers to implement an XML-only syntax incompatible with the other 99.999999% of the web and let us know how it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Except XHTML2 is dead, which is a sad thing. It was the better spec, IMO.
Portion safe to use? (Score:2)
Silverlight's greatest achievement (Score:5, Funny)
Getting mentioned next to Flash in all of these "End of..." articles.
End of Proprietary Formats? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why anyone thinks this will put an end to Flash, Silverlight, etc., since HTML5 doesn't specify allowed CODECs. All this means is that those proprietary codecs will be specified with an HTML5 tag. Everything else will remain the same.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand why anyone thinks this will put an end to Flash, Silverlight, etc., since HTML5 doesn't specify allowed CODECs. All this means is that those proprietary codecs will be specified with an HTML5 tag. Everything else will remain the same.
I agree. I don't understand all the high-fiving going on. So HTML5 can play video. And? The rest of Flash's functionality?
Re:End of Proprietary Formats? (Score:4, Insightful)
And? The rest of Flash's functionality?
The rest of SWF's functionality is supposed to be in JavaScript and the HTML5 DOM, including the canvas and audio elements.
Re: (Score:2)
Including the ability to store super cookies on your computer, so that corporate America can watch over your shoulder?
http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/blog/new-breed-super-cookie-defies-removal-almost [fightidentitytheft.com]
(I like the pic on that page - looks like a girl from high school!)
Re:End of Proprietary Formats? (Score:5, Informative)
If something is done in flash, it is almost definitely done using a proprietary codec(either one of Adobe's weirdo legacy proprietary codecs, or h264), wrapped in Flash, a proprietary runtime for which no good-enough-to-be-particularly-useful implementations exist. If something is done with an HTML 5 video tag, it will(outside of nests of Free software idealists) almost certainly be h264. However, while the patent situation is a mess, good Free implementations of h264 exist, and Free browsers will be on the leading edge of HTML5 development.
With flash based stuff, it is essentially impossible to function on a Free stack, no matter where you live, what patent licences you either posses or are willing to ignore, or whatever. It just isn't possible. Gnash is Not There Yet, and even if you are willing to go proprietary, Flash pretty much sucks on anything that isn't 32-bit windows, and it's a pit of resource consumption and security flaws even there. Silverlight is incrementally better, with Moonlight covering a greater subset of Silverlight than Gnash does Flash, and it not sucking architecturally as much; but it still doesn't cover enough(and pretty much any Silverlight based media application will be using a patent encumbered codec and/or DRM in any event).
h264/HTML5 still suffers patent encumbrance; but anybody not subject to, or willing to ignore, those patents can have a very functional Free implementation more or less now. That counts for something.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to ffmpeg, it's infringing on several patents held by MPEG-LA [ffmpeg.org]
Theora? Don't hold your breath [lwn.net]. Apple, (one of the members of the MPEG-LA patent pool) won't use it no matter what.
The emigration workaround (Score:2)
If you're referring to ffmpeg, it's infringing on several patents held by MPEG-LA
There exists one workaround for MPEG-LA patents:
Re: (Score:2)
If something is done in flash, it is almost definitely done using a proprietary codec(either one of Adobe's weirdo legacy proprietary codecs, or h264)
For the record, Adobe's "weirdo legacy proprietary codec" was basically h263.
Not that I disagree with your post in general. Just letting you know.
Re:End of Proprietary Formats? (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is done with an HTML 5 video tag, it will(outside of nests of Free software idealists) almost certainly be h264.
You think? just like people only posted MPEG2 videos back in the days before Flash? no, what will happen is that everything will almost certainly be h.264, until there's a better codec out there (let's call it h.265) at which point half the content will be in h.264 and half in h.265, then large companies will smell the blood and jump in with their own, improved formats (let's call them WMV2) and lobby large content providers to use it, until browser makers start seeing h.264 as 'legacy' by being so incredibly inefficient compared to h.265 and WMV2 and drop support for it (it's not specified in the standard, remember?) and before you know it, we're in the exact same situation we had before Flash and all you've gained is that the propietary crap is wrapped in a 'video' tag rather than an 'object' one, for all the good that does to you.
No, the only solution is to specify *one* baseline codec that must be supported to comply with the standard, but leave web devs able to specify their own alternative if they so desire. That was what was going to happen with Theora as the baseline but devs able to specify h.264 or whatever shiny toy came later, until Apple began to pout and cry and refuse to implement Theora no matter what, leading us to the current situation.
Re:End of Proprietary Formats? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand why anyone thinks this will put an end to Flash, Silverlight, etc., since HTML5 doesn't specify allowed CODECs. All this means is that those proprietary codecs will be specified with an HTML5 tag. Everything else will remain the same.
Picture this, in 5 years you're developing new Web site and you want a Web application on that site. Say it's a little Web based game. Will you:
Basically, for applications, Flash becomes redundant since you need to use HTM for other devices anyway and HTML 5 supports everything important Flash does. For video, Flash becomes useless overhead, since you can just specify a codec already used in Flash which will save the user's processor and using Flash limits your audience to a subset of what just specifying a standard codec or two does.
Chrome Frame, Group Policy, and Newgrounds (Score:2)
Just create an HTML5 version without Flash, and still support both all major browsers and the iPhone, iPad, and other mobile browsers, excluding some very old versions of browsers that have not installed the Google Frame plug-in?
IE tends to be more popular at work or other locked-down environments, where Group Policy bans the installation of Chrome Frame. In a lot of cases, even the PC in the break room has only IE without Chrome Frame.
for applications, Flash becomes redundant [...] For video, Flash becomes useless overhead
I know of two ways to represent video: pixel block transforms and vector animations. Both H.264 and Theora are based on pixel block transforms. But a lot of the video on, say, Newgrounds is vector animations. So what do you recommend to replace SWF for that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also there is no real guarantee that HTML5 will be better then Flash, Silverlight either. Yes complain how much Flash Sucks. However we open a door for a lot of bad implementations of HTML5
Re: (Score:2)
Well "put an end to Flash" for what? AFAIK HTML5 still can't replicated Flash games very well, so there will probably still be a use for Flash.
However, most of what people use Flash and Silverlight for these days is watching movies. More and more, the videos are MPEG4 videos using H264 and AAC. People tend to use Flash and Silverlight as players, but really that's all they are-- media players. Flash is taking the place of VLC or Quicktime or WMP, decoding H264.
The reason people have used Flash for thi
my bitter ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With the importance of the web, I don't really understand why the W3C does not have a disambiguation committee that chooses and confirms which of the diverging implementations should be used. Sounds like a very wise investment of 2-3 people's wages.
InfoWorld SUCKS (Score:5, Insightful)
And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.
Re: (Score:2)
You expect that there will be some substance to it? I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Petition for a Moratorium on Snydeq Submissions (Score:2)
InfoWorld pays him to astroturf their editors' ramblings here on slashdot, and drive traffic back to their mish-mash of a site. But who knows, Infoworld could be paying slashdot as well and all the snydeq submissions could be slashvertisements.
I understand the substance of your complaint (Score:5, Funny)
however I would assert that
(please click the next comment below the parent to see more insight)
I understand the substance of your complaint (Score:5, Funny)
its not really that much of a problem to read
(please click the next comment in this series for our exciting conclusion)
I understand the substance of your complaint (Score:5, Funny)
an article in tandem sections if you are a search spider or ad generator!
(we hope you've enjoyed this exciting article, please click again, and please click a lot
because we don't think of you as a human reader we should attempt to satisfy, and therefore convince you to visit us again
we think of you as a monkey we have to somehow trick, annoy, and cajole into clicking a lot, for content counts, page hits, and ad revenue
internet content is a zero sum game!)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure this is a record for consecutive, uninterrupted, in-reply-to-the-same-parent, Score:5, Funny comments from the same user (ACs don't count - they never did). There should be a /. Achievement for this, something like "Comedian DoS Attack Award".
What are the security risk? (Score:2, Insightful)
Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5? Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities?
Re: (Score:2)
Different types of vulnerabilities are likely, yes. Some security risks will become smaller (e.g. no more disagreement between browser and plug-in as to what the security context of a given piece of script is, due to there being only one piece of code enforcing security policy).
But more importantly, there won't be a monoculture of vulnerabilities (modulo vulnerabilities required by the spec and not caught in review), and vulnerability patching would happen when browsers patch their stuff and push the secur
Re: (Score:2)
Any one have an idea if the security risk are any higher using HTML5? Or will it be the same risk just different types of vulnerabilities?
It's something of a trade off, but long term an improvement. You see, either way you can disable the plugin or disable javascript for a site to prevent exploits. With Javascript and HTML5 though, you can pick any browser to use and there is ongoing competition for making the best one. For Flash and Silverlight, you're stuck with a single vendor providing it, so any vulnerability and you're stuck waiting for Adobe and MS respectively. You can compare it to e-mail, perhaps. What is more secure Outlook, or sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand a lot of functionality is moved rather hastily from dedicated, years old plugins into the browser itself, which opens the door for bugs, incorrect implementations and general fuck-ups. So in the first few browser iterations there certainly is a risk that someone, somewhere, has missed something critical. Though, as with all other bugs, this should be ironed out over time. The foundation for most of the vulnerable parts, JavaScript, has been around for quite some time now; the worst attack ve
Web Forms 2.0 (Score:2)
Could use an update to HTTP protocol as well (Score:2)
It would go great with a compressed standard for transport stream, such as what Opera does with its mobile for Turbo speeds.
Standard encryption would also be appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
What, never heard of deflate encoding? mod_gzip.
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably referring to the fact HTTP headers are around half a KB per request and never compressed.
Accept-Encoding: gzip (Score:2)
It would go great with a compressed standard for transport stream
It already has one for at least document bodies (Accept-Encoding: gzip), even if not for the HTTP headers.
Good luck on that. (Score:2)
Neil McAllister takes a deeper look at HTML5, outlining what developers should expect from this overhaul of HTML -- one that some believe could put an end to proprietary Web technologies such as Flash and Silverlight.
Good luck on getting Microsoft to sign off on that for IE. They are unlikly to incorporate a standard that eliminates one or more of their "technologies".
Flash/SL are still the only way to share a/v (Score:2, Interesting)
While I'm glad to see movement towards non-prop web video playback, how else (besides Flash/Silverlight) can you do online interactive seminars/meetings with shared audio/video between multiple users (let alone screen/application sharing)? While the HTML5 spec seems to cover video playback pretty well, I don't see an standard-based specification for sharing in streamed audio/video between multiple users (but maybe I'm overlooking something?).
And no this isn't about "chat roulette", it's about remote meetin
What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of anyone mantaining a version of their site for IE and another for Mozilla Firefox. At most we have IE-specific CSS or Javascript code to work around certain bugs of IE6 and IE7... but that's hardly worth of being called "another version" of the site... more like a patch.
For a site of more than minimum complexity you need a solid code base... and having two different versions of the site goes completely against that purpose. That's why, for any development worth its salt, I don't expect we
I'm probably the minority, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Javascript might be better than most languages (Score:3, Interesting)
JavaScript needs a complete overhaul in a capital way. Capital as in capital offence. It needs to be shot in the head and replaced by something that isn't an offence to software development practices everywhere.
Pray tell, what are these offenses? What, exactly, would you overhaul?
Because after I learned a bit about functional techniques and the prototype model, I'm pretty much convinced that traditional "enterprise" application languages like Java and C++ are by comparison nightmares almost designed largely
The funny part (Score:2)
I love standards . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Adobe adds an 'Export to HTML 5' option (Score:2, Interesting)
doesn't that make Flash a great HTML 5 editor?
Reality stopped by. He said 'hi'. (Score:2)
Until these legacy browsers are replaced with modern updates, Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites: a rich version for HTML5-enabled users, and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks.
I've never worked for a company that gave me the time to do two versions of a site. The upshot is you always wind up with the lowest common denominator. Thus, no HTML5-based sites. :(
Unless you're willing to trust some javascript-based solution that enables HTML
The IE elephant in the room (Score:2)
It's hard to get too excited about new web stuff because as a web developer, the answer to "when can I start using the new stuff in my sites" is always "when 90%+ of my visitors have browsers that support it."
And given the excruciatingly slow rates of: IE losing market share, MS implementing new technologies in IE, and users upgrading to newer versions of IE; the answer to that 90%+ question for HTML5 will be measured in years from now.
What to Expect from HTML5? (Score:3, Insightful)
html5-block add-on? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
most videos on the web simply won't play on my Android Phone.
I feel your pain
Re: (Score:2)
Try bittorrent.
PlayReady digital restrictions management (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What authoring tool? (Score:2)
A combination of canvas, SVG, WebGL and Javascript should be enough to do most of what Flash can do.
Say I wanted to make something like "Badgers" [weebls-stuff.com] using HTML5 technologies. What authoring tool do you recommend? Inkscape supports only still SVG, not SVG animation.