W3C Set To Publish HTML 5.1, Work Already Started On HTML 5.2 (softpedia.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Softpedia: Members of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) are getting ready to launch the HTML 5.1 specification and have already started work on the upcoming HTML 5.2 version since mid-August. The HTML 5.1 standard has been promoted from a "Release Candidate" to a "Proposed Recommendation," the last step before it becomes a "W3C Recommendation," and officially replaces HTML 5 as the current HTML standard. As a Proposed Recommendation, HTML 5.1 is practically locked against major changes, and outside small tweaks here and there, we are currently looking at a 99.99 percent version of the upcoming HTML 5.1 standard. The vote to promote HTML 5.1 from RC to PR was approved in unanimity, a clear sign that major browser makers have reached a general consensus on what the standard should look like, and what they should be implementing in their browsers in upcoming versions. You can read more on HTML 5.1 here, the changes and support table here, and the HTML 5.2 specification draft here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny (Score:1)
Funny how the standard is signed by Google and Apple representatives. No wonder Mozilla is crying about big corporates. They had almost no input in this and they're lagging on a lot of features.
Re:Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see anything funny about that. Get ready for the bad old days of massive browser implementation incompatibilities to come back with full force when Google and Apple inevitably turn on each other and start playing tug-of-war with the standard while trampling Mozilla in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: actually... (Score:1)
Let me bluntly say it: Apple users are rich and they spend a lot of money. Apple doesn't allow anything other than WebKit on their iOS. If you put anything that doesn't work on Apple iPhone on your webpage, you will be fired.
It is like opening a restaurant which doesn't serve to millionaires.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah now imagine it has 100% market share of the suits that decide my take-home pay!
"Why doesn't this work on my iPhone!"
Average iOS user outspends Android user 20 to 1 (Score:2)
Share of users, share of traffic, and share of revenue differ.
Safari has a 4.28% market share on the desktop
Among people willing to buy products and services from Internet businesses, the market share is probably bigger than 4.28%.
and a 14% share on mobile.
Among people willing to buy products and services from Internet businesses, the market share is probably bigger than 14%. Tim Stenovec of Tech Insider summarized [techinsider.io] a report from IBM Commerce [ibm.com] stating that iPhone and iPad users outspent Android users over 3 to 1 on Black Friday 2015. The average iOS user also spends over 9 times [www.appleworld.today]
Re: (Score:1)
Safari is holding the web back.
Err, no.
All the wankery that seems to have infected what passes for web pages and services nowadays is, as you put it, holding the web back. If I have to install browser extensions to strip out cruft to make pages readable, then I strongly suggest that the problem lies some place other that a single browser.
For the record, mostly Linux user, haven't looked at Safari for years...
Re: (Score:2)
But... muh EDGE
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
W3C agreed to the versionless <!DOCTYPE html> header for HTML 5, making it impossible to declare a specific version of HTML 5.
Fuck the spec (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know anyone who likes autoplay video/audio, which is why the marketers love it so much. Fuck them all, poke their eye out and fuck them in the skull.
Html5 is making me miss flash, something I never thought would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's probably happening is that autoplay is not set on the static content, and Javascript on the page is modifying it or starting the play. So various settings won't catch it.
If you know Javascript you might start with the Page Modifier plugin, I don't know if you will have every browser API you'll need. You can do fun things like add onplay events to videos, and stop them from the handler.
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely the case. Autoplay is a static attribute to the HTML5 video tag and can be set to be ignored by browsers, but there is also a Javascript API for HTML5 video playback and it is trivial to start playback from there. Technically that is not "autoplay", it is just, "play" that happens to be triggered on page load via Javascript.
Re: (Score:3)
And what happens is that the play command gets lumped in with the popup blocker commands that get ignored on page loads, which lets the play command work AFTER the pag
Firefox does respect your settings (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know anyone who likes autoplay video/audio, which is why the marketers love it so much. Fuck them all, poke their eye out and fuck them in the skull.
Launch Firefox, browse about:config, find media.autoplay.enabled and set to false. No video autoplay anymore, on every site.
On the flip side, you have to click play every video of every page of every video site, news site, sport site, gaming site etc. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
And get weird behavior where you need to click play, which sets it to pause, then play again to get it to play, and sometimes messes up animated gif.
All in all works great though, fuck autoplay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fuck the spec (Score:1)
Why doesn't Google hire that Eloston guy who is genius enough to implement such an advanced method to disable autoplay? It seems that their developers couldn't manage to do it ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't Google hire that Eloston guy who is genius enough to implement such an advanced method to disable autoplay? It seems that their developers couldn't manage to do it ;-)
Google's customers wouldn't like it.
FYI, your attention is the product. Their customers are their advertisers.
I've had it for a month - meh (Score:2)
It stops some autoplays, but many still play.
Re: Fuck the spec (Score:1)
I hate to say it but Chrome is from World's largest advertising company. That is why they are slow(!) or lazy (!) about implementing features that will make advertisers mad.
Just recently, Chrome mobile beta, not final gained the capability to play YouTube videos in background tab. That is the same browser who introduced "every tab runs in its own process" on an operating system which happily runs on 8 core handsets.
If we use& support Mozilla Firefox, it isn't because we are old fashioned. It is because
And its getting worse! (Score:1)
Have you seen the "<iframe allowfullscreen>" tag? Seems to be a marketeers wet dream. And every web users nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably implement that like full screen video - it has to be a user-requested action for that to actually happen and browsers have the ability to block a site from going full screen (as well as doing the overlay that says "site is now full screen" with "allow" and "cancel". And which is NOT overridable - the browser throws it up and the user can cancel it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who likes autoplay video/audio, which is why the marketers love it so much. Fuck them all, poke their eye out and fuck them in the skull.
I've watched lots of non-nerd/technical people use things like Facebook and have often asked them why they have auto-play video enabled (in Facebook it is an option).
From observing their behaviour before I ask them it is clear that autoplaying video for them is a feature - in most cases they scroll down, see the video play, watch the video for at least a few seconds, and then either finish it or move on. The impact of the autoplay is negligible to them; it's just something that happens in the app. None of
User-resizable video windows? (Score:2)
Whatever happened to those? Maybe I'm suffering from good-old-day-ism or simply misremembering, but I seem to remember a point where videos could be put in their own floating, resizable window.
Now they're either a much-too-small region on a web page window or the entire thing fills the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Pop-up blocking features in web browsers killed user-resizable pop-up windows.
Re: (Score:2)
As a programmer, I like videos to autoplay when I instruct the program to do so. HTML is a programming language and does what the programmer wants, as it is intended to do. If you don't like it or certain programmers annoy you, you should avoid said programs/programmers (eg. CNN). Back in the day, browsers had a setting to override ANY CSS stylesheet with your own, immensely useful when everything on the web was Geocities and MySpace pages, I think those setting disappeared later on, perhaps there is an ext
Re: (Score:2)
Use noscript, problem solved.
Bloat (Score:1)
Is it just me or HTML spec start to be a f***ing mess? Google, Apple, Microsoft, .... please leave HTML markup standard alone!
Re: (Score:2)
The HTML stack (HTML/CSS/JS/DOM) has jumped the shark so many times, the shark got carpal tunnel of the eyes.
Teased, burned (Score:2)
I had read that HTML 5 supported form-input date checking and had a pop-up calendar doo-dad. But the only format supported across browser brands is YYYY-MM-DD format, which is NOT what most customers in USA want.
You can twiddle with CSS etc. per brand and version, but one then might as well go back to time-tested JavaScript shit...
I'm tired of fiddling with piddly grunt UI issues, I wish I could focus on domain logic. It gets really boring seeing 25-year-old GUI idioms get both re- and mis-implemented 20 di
Re: Teased, burned (Score:1)
You can also say it for metric system but in real life, they keep on using miles, feet, Fahrenheit.
Re: (Score:2)
Both US and Imperial were derived from English units, but I'm not sure they're the same.
Re: (Score:2)
They are all better than implementing it with jquery UI. Browser really can validate inputs (i.e. is it a number of the integer range 1-100?), provide a nice ui showing whats up (slider) and provide alternative input (textfield with validation) for blind people. With jquery you have a piece of javascript fucking with your input fields, possibly breaking when some stupid ad script contains a js error.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I have to kiss up to the customers or lose them (or my job), and my customers happen to be mostly in the USA. When I gotta pay the mortgage or eat, idealistic logic be damned.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The "local format" must be fucked up then.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is unbelieve that standard input fields are currently not available. What I would like to see as standard input fields on the web.
1) Date field where you can specify how the date is displayed to the user and how the date field is actually sent to the server.
2) Time field with same option as the date field.
3) Timestamp field with date time.
4) Date range field.
5) Integer number field with max min values but not with incremental buttons, and that display only number input on mobile.
6) Currency field wit
Partialy Answered (Score:3)
HTML 5.0 draft (before W3C got into their stupid versioning) contained some of your request already.
1-2) ISO date format needs to be forced upon everybody. like the metric system. However, the spec doesn't require the browser display with it. Browsers are free to display the date in a localized format while submitting the proper ISO format. This wouldn't be much different than how Options display different values. Perhaps the spec should mention this so nobody fears doing this...
3) HTML5 is good enough a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some definition of date/time fields this exists, but is not supported in all browsers, for example Firefox. And the this stuff is just to limited to be actually usuable in real life. And if you have a working example of integer field which works in all browser, I would be very interested to actally see that.
Re: (Score:2)
And how can W3C compel browser makers to support something?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Live streaming vs. prerecorded seeking (Score:2)
Where are the new features that people actually need? Like for example being able to watch a live video stream in a browser without being a web guru and relying in complex server infrastructure.
Have you even looked at the "video" tag? It is exactly that simple.
W3C's description of the <video> element [w3.org] states:
A Google search for HTTP 1.1 progressive streaming led to this page [harbinger-systems.com], which equates it with seeking in a prerecorded stream using HTTP range requests. But CptLoRes was referring to live streams, not prerecorded streams. The same page also states that no
W3C is irrelevant (Score:2)
You do realize that the W3C is irrelevant, right? The standard that the browsers actually use is developed by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WhatWG).