How HTML5 Will Change the Web 208
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner looks beyond the codec and plug-in wars to examine nine areas where HTML5 will have a significant impact on Web development. From enabling more interactive graphics, to tapping local file storage, to geolocation, HTML5 is rife with rich capabilities — and may even improve our ability to secure applications delivered via the Web, Wayner writes. But the most important impact of HTML5 will be its ability to simplify Web development itself: 'HTML5 offers one language (JavaScript), one data model (XML and DOM), and one set of layout rules (CSS) to bind text, audio, video, and graphics. The challenge of making something beautiful is still immense, but it's simpler to work with a unified standard.'"
One data model (Score:2)
Doesn't HTML5 JS still provide XSLT as well as DOM?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
XSLT is not in itself a data model, but it assumes a data model that is not DOM (although obviously all "working with XML" models tend to have a lot in common). XSLT/XPath 2.0 depends explicitly on the W3C XDM data model. XSLT 1.0 (which is what you tend to find in browsers) is a bit more murky, but, for example, you won't find Result Tree Fragments in DOM (thank goodness).
Recently there has been a bit of revival in client-side XSLT processing, so the point isn't totally obscure...
The one real data model: XML (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are we using HTML5 and not XHTML 2?
XML abuses aside, XHTML is superior to HTML5.
HTML5 requires a more complex parser than XHTML ever will. XHTML can be validated for correctness, HTML5 is more difficult to do so.
I honestly don't understand the reason for following the HTML route. XHTML is already in an industry understood format that tools already exist for.
The market rarely reflects a superior technology. I still support XHTML. HTML5 is messy, ugly and a kludge.
All that needs to happen is to transfer some of the newer tags of HTML5 into XHTML. Perhaps we can borrow from the microformat peeps? Afterall, it's supposed to be modular.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The one real data model: XML (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The one real data model: XML (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing stopping you from using well-formed XML in your HTML5, or serving your document as application/xhtml+xml (explicitly stated in the HTML5 spec). Serving HTML5 as proper XML is dubbed "XHTML 5". It uses the same doctype. All the new tags -- video, audio, section, header, etc. are supported, but obviously the lax markup features of HTML5 (like being able to omit most tags) no longer apply.
Re:The one real data model: XML (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue isn't that it's not possible, the issue is that HTML5 seems to tend towards HTML markup over XML markup.
Effectively it pushes bad practice as standard because there really is no benefit to HTML markup other than the ability to write sloppy markup, which is stupid.
People publish using tools nowadays, leave markup to the professionals (not that writing well formed XML is hardly a difficult job). If people can't understand how to write well formed XML markup then they've got no chance of understanding CSS and Javascript so might as well give up and use a web app to publish for them anyway.
Best to support the people who actually write web apps to make it easier to write better web apps, than to support sloppy developers who use HTML markup "because it's easier".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
XML abuses aside, XHTML is superior to HTML5.
HTML can be loaded incrementally, XHTML can't, as you can only validate the document when you have all of it.
Re:The one real data model: XML (Score:4, Informative)
Yes it can. Firefox (at least) does so. If it gets to the end of the page and find it's invalid, THEN it throws up the error, even if it's already rendered part of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
HTML can be loaded incrementally, XHTML can't, as you can only validate the document when you have all of it.
Sure you can. It's called a streaming parser [wikipedia.org], and SAX (for Java) started in 1997. This isn't exactly new technology. And in any case, parsing well-formed XML is always easier than hacking at tag soup.
Re:The one real data model: XML (Score:5, Informative)
HTML can be loaded incrementally, XHTML can't, as you can only validate the document when you have all of it.
You don't need to validate an XHTML document in order to start rendering it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 requires a more complex parser than XHTML ever will.
I guess that parsing time is a fraction of the whole time required to render the page: text rendering, displaying images and running JS.
As I have never wrote a HTML parser, I can only draw analogies with other fields. E.g. in source code compilation most of the time is spent in optimizer, not parser. Even when optimizer is off, the times are still dominated by (1) the reading of all the source files (in C - headers) from disk and (2) semantics validation and code generation.
Complexity in the code (Score:2)
That sounds accurate about the actual parsing complexity but I didn't necessarily mean complexity at run time.
I meant that a XHTML parser would imaginably much simpler than a HTML5 parser.
Re:The one real data model: XML (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are we using HTML5 and not XHTML 2?
XML abuses aside, XHTML is superior to HTML5.
Go read http://diveintohtml5.org/ [diveintohtml5.org]
Essentially, the argument is, make it easy for the users - the web programmers, not the browser programmers, and to allow the browsers to incrementally implement the standard, rather than an all or nothing that no one will do. . Telling the browser to error out when the html is not correct or supported is user UNfriendly. HTML5 provides a graceful way to handle it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm with you on this. It took me a while to get a good feel for valid XHTML strict. But I like the tight specification, because it makes the markup very consistent. (Ex: lowercase only, quotes for values assigned to parameters, closing slash on unclosable tags. Such as
.) I've been seeing some HTML5 examples which seem to lack that same OCD level of control and it kinda makes me twitch. More user friendly, yes, but I've come to enjoy consistency. That's my preference and it's what works for me.
Most of the n
Re: (Score:2)
(Ex: lowercase only, quotes for values assigned to parameters, closing slash on unclosable tags. Such as <br
Most of the new elements in HTML5 look like alternatives to div's with unique ID's ( <header> vs <div id="header">)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because HTML5 has better backward compatibility to existing HTML documents (and, for that matter, the model of XHTML 1.x) than does XHTML2, and adds features that are more useful to content providers and developers in delivering content and applications that are useful to end users.
XHTML2 may have had some ideas that are, in their area, superior to HTML5, but is overall inferior in terms of features. Being XML-only (unlike HTML5, which supports an XML rendition but als
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we using HTML5 and not XHTML 2?
Because XHTML 2 is designed by academics, while HTML 5 is cobbled together by browser makers.
Browser makers apparently have different concerns. They don't care so much about abstractions and separations of concerns, and more about how easy it is to implement a renderer for it and how it will perform. Browser makers are probably less ambitious and more pragmatic. Or maybe they want to mark this out as their territory, instead of having other people tell them what to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we using HTML5 and not XHTML 2?
HTML5 is more than vapourware, and provides new features that are useful to people making real-world websites.
XML abuses aside, XHTML is superior to HTML5.
That is not logically possible when XHTML is a subset of HTML5 [whatwg.org].
HTML5 requires a more complex parser than XHTML ever will.
Guess what? The real world isn't a pretty theoretical little flower. HTML5 defines consistent error handling for content on the existing internet, not the non-existent one.
XHTML can be validated for correctness, HTML5 is more difficult to do so.
The code exists for both already, so this is a moot point.
I honestly don't understand the reason for following the HTML route. XHTML is already in an industry understood format that tools already exist for.
Because we're sick of waiting decades for the fucking W3C to do anything. They've procrastinated themselves
As always... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here. Nobody reads the article.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder how he finds the time to read all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is an HP/AMD ad in the print version here.
"Offers one way of doing things" (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> we can make games that run on pc, xbox, and ps3 but we can't manage some browser quirks?
We do manage browser quirks. It's just a huge time sink that takes away from productive work.
Also, try the following exercise. Make a list of every game that works on every version of xbox, every version of playstation, every version of nintendo, and every version of Windows. If you get zero, make a list of the apps that run on any version of each platform. I think you will realize that web apps are, in practice
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to agree on this, and think Flash is the way to go (see http://www.infoworld.com/print/125721 [infoworld.com]). Either that is BS or this article is BS, they can't claim both. Everything they say could be said for Flash and vice-versa.
Sure they can have it both ways, just as long as it increases page hits on the infoworld website!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I doubt that the popular browsers will even have a reliable implementation of the standard until at least 2013
I doubt IE will ever have a reliable implementation for anything. HTML5 surely aims to simplify web development, but MS aims to use their proprietary BS, tags, and implementations. Just look at their box model. Look at all the extra time we have to take to develop for IE users.
Plus, there are accessibility issues we have to overcome. We also need to develop for that small fraction of the population who use text browsers, those who are blind and have text read to them, those who don't install Flash (f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened was that xhtml2 had two flaws.
1: errors were treated like errors. That means that broken hacks made by graphic artists would result in an error message instead of a random attempt to render a broken document. This also made creating a partial implementation more difficult.
2: No one implemented a reference implementation. So that web browser vendors would have to do all the heavy lifting.
WHATWG formed and decided to take all the hacked errors and random implementations of browsers and make thos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
XHTML5 is nowhere near as advanced as XHTML2, however.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason, W3C then abandoned the superior standard of XHTML2 and adopted the steaming pile that WHATWG dumped on them.
You contradict yourself. How "standard" (as in "pile of paper") can be superior to actually working implementation?
End-users (aka "content consumers") gain nothing from idealistic approach of pushing superior standard over working implementation. And HTML5 tried to address the needs of the end users by throwing bunch of fancy multimedia stuff into the standard. That to my limited knowledge wasn't even part of XHTML2.
In the end, WHATWG has very little manpower to simultaneously create a great spec and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would hardly call html5 an actual working implementation. Hell, html4 isn't perfectly implemented in a good chunk of browsers yet.
XHTML2 was an extensible format by definition. There was nothing there stopping you or anyone else from adding a video or canvas tag to it.
A good specification needs to be consistent, it needs to be logical and well formed, it needs to be minimal but specific, it needs to address known problems with the previous specification.
HTML5 is and does none of these.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You contradict yourself. How "standard" (as in "pile of paper") can be superior to actually working implementation?
I hope you're not a software developer. The world is full of 'actual working implementations' which have caused years of pain for the sake of not spending a few days thinking it through on a 'pile of paper' before implementing, and then 'not having the time' to rewrite it once the blatant design flaws become obvious.
Most of the worst ideas in the history of the web have come from taking some web browser's 'working implementation' and making it part of a standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA ...Flash groupies joke about HTML5 being a time machine to take you back to 2000...
Because it replaces Flash completely .... and they are worried
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 may offer a unified way to do things...but that does not mean that the other ways will just vanish.
Nor does it mean that new ways will not evolve outside the standard.
The standards committee moves slowly. It is beset by commercial, nationalist and ideological rivalries - which the entrepreneur - the outsider - can cheerfully ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
I have only bad things to say about Flash to be honest, however unfortunately browsers are not yet ready to play movies (the only reason I use flash anyway).
However saying that browser with HTML5 will be enough to completely get rid of a Java applet is most likely misleading.
I have real reasons to disagree with this, primarily based on a couple of months of work I put into research and development trying all possibilities in a browser to have a truly desktop-like application developed. I started small, wit
Of course (Score:3, Funny)
It will be adopted by progressive advertisers to achieve even greater degrees of annoyance per page
I've seen the future and it's having a 50% off sale for the first 100 customers to click now!!
HTML5 Will Help Change The Web (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:HTML5 Will Help Change The Web (Score:5, Insightful)
The core assumption that users cared about filling correct metadata was wrong outside the research community (and even outside the IT research community). It will take off but you need software to fill in what was assumed users would do.
Re: (Score:2)
The core assumption that users cared about filling correct metadata was wrong outside the research community (and even outside the IT research community). It will take off but you need software to fill in what was assumed users would do.
Now you just need to explain to me why I would _want_ my computer adding arbitrary information such as my location to every message I send.
"Hi mum, I'll be over once I've finished watching a <reference>Goatse</reference><tag>video</tag>"
I love flashblock (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I love flashblock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I'll just put the canvas tags right besides the body tags and save myself a lot of work instead of dealing with this whole Aech Tee emm Ell thing.
Re:I love flashblock (Score:4, Insightful)
You're joking, but I actually foresee this being used very widely to block copy/paste and web scraping.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's an open standard CPU eating abominations for no good reason at all, and that's all the difference in the world!
(Sound of round being loaded into chamber)
Are you with us or against us, comrade? Answer wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
You most certainly can block it -- it resides nicely between two tags.
Will blocking the tag stop the underlying javascripts from running?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, but I'm sure somebody will be glad to add a feature into their browser that will strip all scripts, tags, and other unspecified annoyance delivery methods out of untrusted pages before it renders them.
And I'll be quite glad to use that browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Canvas is already abused. Some/Many sites use it for font rendering - see Cufon and similar projects. Cufon was born as an alternative to sIFR, the flash method of doing the same thing.
Of course, the sane way of doing this is by embedding fonts, but that way has its own issues [richnetapps.com] (licensing, quality of fonts, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, you can do about anything that you used to do in Flash but you have a greater amount of control over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These kind of things just scare the security right out of me!
It Won't (Score:2)
Wasn't Youtube supposed to be switching to it months ago?
Re: (Score:2)
They had a test page for HTML5 stuff, but it would be pretty dumb to completely switch over to it before the specs are finished and all the main browsers have passable implementations of those specs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It Won't (Score:4, Informative)
They can't because some browsers (most notably Firefox and Opera) will not support H.264, yet nearly all of their content is already in H.264. Thats game over right there for YouTube converting to HTML5. Maybe in 5 years or more, and only when all major browsers support a single codec.
Re:It Won't (Score:4, Informative)
The answer is No, YouTube has not switched, and has no plans to switch, from Flash to HTML5.
They can't because some browsers (most notably Firefox and Opera) will not support H.264, yet nearly all of their content is already in H.264. Thats game over right there for YouTube converting to HTML5. Maybe in 5 years or more, and only when all major browsers support a single codec.
But Google is also offering (or is in the process of offering) all YouTube videos as WebM [webmproject.org], and the next versions of Firefox and Opera will have WebM support, and the dev channel of Chrome already has it. They really want to switch to HMTL5. I'm sure at this point they'd prefer IE and Safari to support WebM as well, but obviously they have the storage to keep every video as H.264 and WebM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
summary wrong on two counts about "one language" (Score:5, Informative)
ahh, the summary is wrong both from a W3C DOM standards perspective, because java is listed as the 2nd language supported by the W3C. the summary is wrong from a second perspective in that language bindings to HTML5-compliant web browser engines such as XulRunner and WebKit have been available for years. if Microsoft actually intend also to follow the HTML5 process properly, then it can be said that MSHTML, through its COM interface, also offers other language alternatives for decades rather than just years.
now it's a sad fact that nobody really *knows* that you can get at HTML5-compliant web browser engines and use DOM functions (3000+) and access DOM properties (20,000+) through XPCOM, or Glib/Gobject or COM, but it's perfectly possible. the best demonstration of this at its most extreme limit, taking advantage of absolutely all HTML5 W3C DOM features, is the http://pyjs.org/ [pyjs.org] pyjamas project, which abstracts the differences between these three major web browser engine types (XulRunner, Webkit and MSHTML aka Trident) and presents a single uniform API. on top this uniform API, normalising the discrepancies between the three engine types, an entire Desktop GUI Widget Set API has been created.
so the statement that there is "one HTML5 language: javascript" is just nonsense. for further examples of accessing HTML5 DOM using python, some of which will lead through to links to Ruby accessing HTML5 DOM such as AppCelerator, see http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebBrowserProgramming [python.org]
Where is UVC webcam support? (Score:2)
So far we have text, a codec and artwork.
When will web 2.0 be interactive again?
Geolocation and space (Score:2)
In HTML5, the browser returns the latitude and longitude of the user to Javascript. Shouldn't the browser also return the planet, local star etc?
How will ISS visitors browse?
Re: (Score:2)
In HTML5, the browser returns the latitude and longitude of the user to Javascript. Shouldn't the browser also return the planet, local star etc?
How will ISS visitors browse?
They have a lattitude and longitude just like the rest of us. It just varies rather quickly, a degree of longitude every twenty seconds, or so.. On the other hand moon colonies "sub earth longitude" only varies about a degree every two hours.
Do sailors, without adblock, get endless banner ads "hot girls in The Middle Of The Atlantic Ocean want to meet YOU!"
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand moon colonies "sub earth longitude" only varies about a degree every two hours.
Err, if the earth didn't rotate, I mean. More like 15 degrees per hour plus or minus some rounding error for all non-earth orbit colonies. Pluto closest to 15 degrees/hr, moon furthest off.
"Change the web"? (Score:2)
Where have I heard this before? (Score:4, Funny)
One language (JavaScript) to rule them all, one data model (XML and DOM) to find them, one set of layout rules (CSS) to bring text, audio, video, and graphics and in the darkness bind them.
Why do I have a bad feeling about this?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it kosher to mix LoTR and Star Wars metaphors?
One data model? (Score:2)
Personally I'll be sticking to JSON
I know what we must do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. HTML5 is full of crazy stuff, and few realize yet because video, canvas, and the other eye candy has been getting all the attention. Tag soup by default... I'd rather not go back to 1996. The return of some presentational tags (b, i, but not u) now with snazzy new presentational definitions (b really means bold, but we'll throw in big semantic-sounding words to appease the non-visual crowd).
Good thing Hixie's l tag (for line of text, to kill all the natural text flow in block elements) never went
Chickens and eggs (Score:2)
When a true random sampling of internet users shows 80%+ of those users using browsers with good HTML 5 support, then I'll start using HTML 5.
Until then, as an internet developer for a small business, it's still HTML 4. We don't have the money to do both and we have to go where the users are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a wise choice I'm not sure others will follow. If possible, it's always best to use the oldest specs that are still supported that will actually do what you want the page to do.
As to chickens and eggs, the egg came first, as any palientologist or biologist will tell you. Chickens aren't the only animals that lay eggs. It's ok if your egg lays dinasaurs, as long as the dinasaur is well trained.
better implement CSS3 etc. first... (Score:2)
How's the W3C reference implementation coming along by the way?
too bad its runs different in all browsers (Score:2, Insightful)
Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
HTML5 will improve security
While I love many things about HTML5, the idea of throwing out rendering libraries and starting again from scratch does not necessarily fill one with confidence about the security of the tools. Sure, less reliance on plug-ins means less opportunities for 3rd party security holes. But doing everything in the browser code itself also means that the potential attack vectors have more direct control over the machine. Plus any new library is going to have security vulnerabilities for a while.
I'm not saying HTML5 is insecure. But let's not kid ourselves: there will be a year or two of scrambling to fix new attack vectors.
CHANGE IS ALREADY HERE (Score:5, Interesting)
There is HTML5 (Score:2)
And there is Microsoft only doing a subset of the spec, and users expecting to get the latest whiz bang stuff backported to IE6 and even worse IE6 mobile...
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
***HTML5 will allow applications to tap local file storage***
Once or twice a decade I encounter a "They can't possibly be serious" moment. This is one of those occasions.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, where is the system folder on Ubuntu 9.10?
one language (Score:2)
First of all, its not one language when you count all the PHP, Java / JSP, ASP, Python, Perl, Tcl etc that runs on the server.
Second of all, that one language should be Python FTW.
He doesn't mention fonts (Score:5, Informative)
The current versions of all the major browsers can now dynamically download fonts. We can finally stop putting display text in images. Opera, Safari, Chrome, Firefox (3.6 or greater) and IE are all on board with this. By IE 9, they'll even be using the same font format, Web Open Font Format. (Except for the iPad, which, for some weird reason, currently requires fonts in SVG format. But even the iPad understands "@font-face")
Few sites are using this capability yet. We are, as a demo. Try our steampunk search engine [sitetruth.com] with authentic Victorian fonts.
Nitpicks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to be a minor thing simply wrong in every single point...
Point #1 is flat wrong on this count:
If drawing images is your goal, then the Canvas object may be powerful enough. But if you want to build specialized 3-D worlds like the ones found in the more sophisticated Flash and Shockwave games, you may be pining for the old days...
Erm... Maybe WebGL isn't officially part of HTML5, but it's there, and Chrome is implementing it. And personally, I'd much rather force people to download a decent open source browser than a decent proprietary plug-in -- there's alway Chrome Frame if you really need it.
Point #2:
some developers deliberately disabled the Flash plug-in to avoid the headaches and overhead of rendering heavy Flash content. That won't be an option in the future.
Bullshit. It'd take less than ten minutes to put this jQuery in a Chrome extension: $('canvas').remove();
Point #3:
Game programmers might store descriptions and artwork locally, saving the time of downloading the information again and again.
That's what HTTP caches are for, and they work for XHR, too!
Please, no one do this. Ever. HTML5 storage is for storing data. When you use it for caches, you add that much more stuff we might inadvertently back up, that much more cache we can't automatically purge (to claim disk space) or expire (from disuse), and you're doing more work to duplicate functionality HTTP already has.
Point #4:
The so-called microformats in HTML5
I'm confused... microformats don't require HTML5, do they?
Point #5 is fine, though it doesn't mention potential privacy concerns.
Point #6:
Google's new format will see some usage, for example in YouTube, but will never reach anywhere close to the ubiquity of H.264.
Erm, do you know something we don't? Last I checked, YouTube is still H.264 -- in a Flash container, no less.
Point #7, I don't care about.
Point #8:
This claim of better security, though, is a bit of a wild guess. The devious minds may use their malice aforethought to take advantage of the nice integration, perhaps drawing PayPal logos with the Canvas object...
So phishing will be easier? Big deal. Hasn't Flash been the biggest vector for actual client-side pwnage for awhile?
Point #9:
Now, if only HTML5 came with the nice collection of tools that Adobe makes for Flash.
Adobe has said they plan to target HTML5.
Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, HTML5 really makes the whole situation worse too, because rather than being a forward thinking spec, it takes everything that's been done wrong over the years, and makes it part of the standard. Then it adds in a load more stuff that appears half thought through (the video tag that doesn't do what it was originally intended for- standardised video), the semantic section tags, which only cover a tiny subset of the sections a site tends to have and which appears outdated before it's even launched (i.e. no comments section tags).
The ideology behind HTML5 is rather than create a new spec that tells people how things should be done, make a spec that takes everything bad people have done and make it standard, so that those incompetent developers are now adhering to the standard.
Overally it means more ambiguity, more jumble in the spec, stuff that might (has?) become obsolete before it's barely even used and that sort of thing.
HTML5 will change the web alright, back to the philosophy of hack it together any which way, who cares about lack of maintainbility, interoperability, accessibility and so forth. This seems an extremely backward way of doing things when web apps are getting ever more complex, and average Joes who publish are publishing via web apps anyway mitigating the need for them to get their hands dirty with markup.
HTML5 just doesn't come across as a professionally written spec, you compare it to other specs out there and it looks like it's been slapped together by a bunch of kids with no real experience of large scale software development.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you from adobe?
Re: (Score:2)
He is probably a disgruntled XHTML2 supporter, just like me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More likely from the XHTML2 workgroup. I know a guy from that workgroup, and he has nothing good to say about HTML5. He did a really nice XForms presentation on ApacheCon once, though. Apparently, with XForms you can write Google Maps in a day or so. Really cool, but not part of HTML5.
Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it will make the situation better. It takes the real web into account, and standardizes behaviors that are already in use out there. At the same time, the spec is much clearer and easier to implement correctly because it also specifies error handling and such. In other words, the opposite of your FUD.
No, the spec has been written to be clear to implementors how they should implement it properly.
Ok, so Google, Apple, Mozilla and Opera have no real experience from large scale software development? Heh.
Re: (Score:3)
HTML5 will change the web alright, back to the philosophy of hack it together any which way, who cares about lack of maintainbility, interoperability, accessibility and so forth.
This has been the philosophy of the Web ever since HTML was first (mis)used to create applications rather than mark up textual data. What is this "back" you're referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
***Is this really likely to change?***
Of course not.
***HTML5 is rife with rich capabilities***
IT speak for "you'll be damn lucky if anything works on anything other than sometimes on the browsers that are tested to -- IE, Firefox and Chrome"
======
I don't see how technology on computers can inoculate Web Page designers with common sense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't actually seen the creative assets yet, so I don't know if its a campaign designed at actually selling a product (most likely is), or just keeping the brand image out there. My guess is what ever the ad is it will be interactive with the user. I've run a few small tests for amusement to see what could be done to enhance the advertising
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh