Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What To Expect From HTML5

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the endless-debate-about-video dept.

Graphics 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thank you Apple (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402464)

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.

Re:Thank you Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402530)

Muahahahaha!

Re:Thank you Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402588)

Except nobody uses Apple products that count.

Re:Thank you Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402620)

As a not very big Apple fan, I concur.

Vector animation? (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402646)

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?

Re:Vector animation? (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402738)

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? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402800)

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:Vector animation? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403022)

[...] what tool for creating vector animations for HTML 5 is comparable to Adobe Flash CS series?

All right, I give up. What other program is as bug-riddled, bloated, unreliable, and completely ill-suited to the task of making vector animations as the Adobe Flash CS series?

Re:Vector animation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403378)

You can't. A solid IDE for replacing the Flash IDE for svg does not exist. Illu is okay to make an svg but to animate it, use it in a simulation or interaction you need a solid IDE. The lack of one is the reason svg has been out in the wilderness for years. The depth of controls that the FLash IDE, Flash Builder IDE, and Flash Catalyst IDE are missing in the html5/svg/javascript world when your doing that kind of work

The best thing for html5/svg/javascript coding is to have the Flash IDE add a cross compiler where it would output that from the .fla file. None of the designers/animators/user experience artists will open a pure code view to do all their work. That won't happen until the standards get closer to finalized.

Er... standing up? Really? (4, Interesting)

Alaren (682568) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402658)

Has Flash has been pushing people around? Seems to me its ubiquity is attributable to web developers (and, arguably, their clientele), and to its ability to deliver what was desired.

Generally one "stands up" to bullies. At best, Apple (and Google, and even Microsoft) have been "standing up" to web developers who don't want to learn something new, even if it is (presumably) better.

Re:Er... standing up? Really? (2, Interesting)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402824)

I wouldn't say learning is the problem, not wanting to buy or pirate Adobe products is the issue.

Re:Thank you Apple (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402678)

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:Thank you Apple (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403044)

I'd hope that Apple wouldn't support "Thedora" and they would instead choose to support "Theora" ...just a Spelling Nazi entertaining himself:

Re:Thank you Apple (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403356)

Why would they choose to support a codec that is a rival (theora) to one in which they hold patents (H.264)?

Re:Thank you Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402768)

I don't want HTML5. I want XHTML2. Get to work on this now.

Re:Thank you Apple (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402968)

You're the only one who does. You'll have to make do with XHTML5

They're skipping 2, 3, and 4 (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403010)

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.

Re:Thank you Apple (1)

cool_story_bro (1522525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403084)

I don't want HTML5. I want XHTML2. Get to work on this now.

from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

HTML5 is the proposed next standard for HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 and DOM Level 2 HTML.

Always do your research, kids!

Re:Thank you Apple (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402778)

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.

Re:Thank you Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402890)

and big thanks to c*cks*ckers like you for giving us folk in the real world something to laugh about every now and again.

talk about lost cause.

...Now help standardize on non-proprietary codecs. (3, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403030)

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 domain so that everyone can use the arguably "better" codec.

In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora? I mean, I can understand them implementing H.264, if they think it's a better codec. Google does too, and they've said on record that they think that H.264 is superior. Nevertheless, Chrome does also support Ogg Theora. Opera supports Ogg Theora. Firefox, of course supports Ogg Theora, and due to its open source nature, can't support H.264 unless it's released to the public domain. Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either yet. But Safari? The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.

So yeah, no thanks, Apple. At least, not yet.

Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403388)

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.

Every piece of Apple hardware that can play video supports H.264 which is also what they provide in their iTunes store. They can't change that overnight. Furthermore they'd need to support H.264 anyway since Youtube uses it. Apple can't release H.264 into the public domain, because they don't own it.

In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?

Safari, at least on the Mac, supports everything the Quicktime framework supports. While they have been shipping H.264 support with Qicktime for years they are not preventing you from installing a plugin [xiph.org] if you want to watch Theora videos in HTML5.

Firefox, of course supports Ogg Theora, and due to its open source nature, can't support H.264 unless it's released to the public domain.

Firefox could easily support H.264 if they used the codec framework the operating systems provide. There are free (as in beer/licensed and as in freedom) H.264 decoders that you can download for DirectShow and Qicktime. The situation with GStreamer isn't that good, but since Fluendo provides a free and legal MP3 decoder for linux I'm sure it wouldn't be so hard for someone with the resources (for instance Mozilla and Opera) to get together and provide the same thing for H.264. Realistically it wouldn't be a problem though since most people have the GStreamer Bad and Ugly plugins installed anyway.
Another thing Firefox could do is to use FFMpeg for Vorbis and Theora decoding. That way it would be trivial for the user to replace a stripped FFMpeg with a full featured one and play basically every video on the web.

Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403400)

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:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403478)

That and Apple is a holder of H.264 and MP4 patents.

Re:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403406)

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:...Now help standardize on non-proprietary code (1, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403484)

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.) But Safari does. So it is certainly clear that Apple is the big winner here, and any fighting that they are doing is certainly in their own interests. But it may still help out people interested in using other browsers eventually.

In fact, speaking of an unencumbered codec, have you noticed that Safari, by deliberate choice, does not support Ogg Theora?

Safari, by deliberate choice, also does not support Vi keystrokes. Nor do they support, by deliberate choice, reading the contents of your flash drive directly from the browser.

Microsoft is blissfully quiet on the matter and doesn't support either yet. But Safari? The odd man out, the only browser that could support both and has chosen not to.

Doublethink alert. Microsoft could support both, and has chosen not to. Windows 7 ships with h.264. Apple/Safari is not the odd man out. What's happened is that the fringe players added support for a codec that no one uses, and the big guns realize how pointless that is and have decided not to.

Re:Thank you Apple (1)

daveisfera (832409) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403396)

Except for the fact that Apple has also stood in the way of the adoption of Ogg Theora as a standard for the video tag, so they're doing just as much to prevent the dismissal of flash as they are usher it in (or you could be even more tinfoil hatish and say that they're just trying to replace one proprietary standard with another).

What to except (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402534)

You can expect inconsistent implementations; same as it ever was.

Re:What to except (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402674)

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:What to except (2, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402814)

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 (3, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403016)

fix the web without breaking backwards compatibility

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 (2, Interesting)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402560)

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 (3, Interesting)

Dracos (107777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403048)

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:HTML5 (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403210)

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:HTML5 (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403476)

Except XHTML2 is dead, which is a sad thing. It was the better spec, IMO.

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403248)

Could you be more specific? This seems very interesting, but provides zero useful information for somebody else to even begin to learn what to read to help develop an informed opinion, something more than 'Some guy on slashdot said this sucks'.

Patent lawsuit from Adobe commences in.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402568)

3... 2... 1...

Portion safe to use? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402576)

If well the article touches a bit some support of it on current browsers (i.e. in webkit enabled ones) would be interesting to know what portion of it is more globally supported right now in current desktop/mobile browsers, and of course, which ones. If Youtube decided to kill IE6, the move of sites to HTML5 could help to kill some other outdated and potentially dangerous other browsers, at least is the latest version of the main ones share a common ground on HTML5.

flash will never die... (1)

bmecoli (963615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402598)

As long as there's newgrounds and /f/...

Silverlight's greatest achievement (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402632)

Getting mentioned next to Flash in all of these "End of..." articles.

Re:Silverlight's greatest achievement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403350)

The latest "upgrade" to the miserable Windows-only software my business uses will consist of a new web-enabled client based on Silverlight and Java.

Anything to get netflix off SilverDimPhotons (1)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402642)

I am all for it, if it means it will get Netflix off of SilverDimPhotons, and onto something that is supported in Linux.

Re:Anything to get netflix off SilverDimPhotons (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402702)

It's not Linux, but rather portable devices that may or may not be running Linux (e.g. iPhone and Android) that will drive the adoption of HTML5. Personally I despise Flash even more than Silverlight. The main reason I despise both of them is that most videos on the web simply won't play on my Android Phone.

Re:Anything to get netflix off SilverDimPhotons (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403042)

most videos on the web simply won't play on my Android Phone.

I feel your pain

Re:Anything to get netflix off SilverDimPhotons (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402714)

Try bittorrent.

PlayReady digital restrictions management (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403096)

MoonDimPhotons works on Linux and can generally play web applications designed for the previous version of SilverDimPhotons, as long as they don't use DRM [mono-project.com] . But Netflix intentionally makes its service incompatible with MoonDimPhotons because a recompiled version of MoonDimPhotons could tee(1) [ss64.com] the video into a file that can easily be redistributed to the public in violation of copyright. Linux on PCs and DRM are at fundamental odds with each other.

End of Proprietary Formats? (5, Insightful)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402686)

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:End of Proprietary Formats? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402770)

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? (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403162)

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:End of Proprietary Formats? (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402842)

While the situation RE: Software patents isn't really where Free software enthusiasts would like it(among others, it isn't hard to find people who think that software patents are a serious clusterfuck); there is big difference:

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:End of Proprietary Formats? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402958)

good Free implementations of h264 exist

If you're referring to ffmpeg, it's infringing on several patents held by MPEG-LA [ffmpeg.org]

whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction.

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 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403284)

If you're referring to ffmpeg, it's infringing on several patents held by MPEG-LA

There exists one workaround for MPEG-LA patents:

  1. Emigrate from the United States and other countries where MPEG-LA controlled patents are enforceable.
  2. Start a web site operated from and hosted in this country.
  3. Use IP address geotargeting to make your web site available in markets other than the United States and other countries where MPEG-LA controlled patents are enforceable. For markets with patent restrictions, display "Coming Soon" with a JavaScript countdown showing the number of seconds until the essential patents expire.

For the record, why is this workaround unacceptable?

Re:End of Proprietary Formats? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403240)

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? (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402868)

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:

  • Create a version in Flash and not support the iPhone, iPad, and several other phones.
  • Create a version in Flash and a version in HTML5 to support both regular Web browsers and the iPhone, iPad, and Mobile devices that don't do Flash?
  • 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?

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 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403414)

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:End of Proprietary Formats? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402904)

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:End of Proprietary Formats? (1)

NightLamp (556303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403312)

However we open a door for a lot of bad implementations of HTML5

The door is already open, an HTML5 canvas renderer and implementation in Flash is definitely possible, much like Chrome Frame for IE it could help spur adoption for legacy browsers. Silverlight could accomplish the same thing - possibly in a more complete way since custom video decoders can be written for it.

Think about this issue inside-out, what happens when full web browser functionality is replicated in Flash(AIR) or Silverlight(OOB)?

Re:End of Proprietary Formats? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403510)

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 this purpose is largely because it could be embedded in the website. Up until recently, embedding a video into a webpage wasn't supported very well by most browsers. The normal methods for embedding video didn't provide much control, and it was hard to tell how the client browser would respond. Using Flash, you could tell it, "Don't load the video right away, but just show a thumbnail with video playback controls. Make the controls look like this. When the video is done playing, automatically play the next video in this playlist..." along with a lot of other controls. If you didn't use Flash, then the video might get loaded by Quicktime, WMP, Real Player, VLC, or god-knows-what video player and you had no idea what the player would present the user with.

So now HTML5 comes along and provides better controls for those sorts of things. It may not be perfect, but if the functionality is sufficient it's preferable to decode the video in your system's media player. Flash isn't very efficient or stable on anything other than Windows, and often isn't installed by standard on Linux systems. Plus, it's one less arbitrary piece of software that you need to install on every system, and one fewer instance of vendor lock-in.

Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402720)

A lot of web developers were already maintaining (at least) 2 versions of their sites- one for modern browsers with correct CSS and one for IE.

Animated and dynamic web pages have become so standard now, I'm glad we can finally see standards support for creating them without resource-hogging proprietary plug-ins.

Inertia be damned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402726)

Uninstalling Flash is the important part. Remaining issues can be tackled as they come.

Re:Inertia be damned (3, Insightful)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402872)

You do realise that video wasn't the only thing Flash did, right? What exactly in HTML5 is going to replace the ease with which you can create animations and games with a unique look and feel in Flash?

Re:Inertia be damned (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402988)

Isn't most of that functionality already available in DHTML?

Re:Inertia be damned (1)

chentiangemalc (1710624) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403026)

...and the ease of SilverLight development....

Re:Inertia be damned (1)

piquadratCH (749309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403074)

A combination of canvas [wikipedia.org] , SVG [wikipedia.org] , WebGL [wikipedia.org] and Javascript should be enough to do most of what Flash can do.

What authoring tool? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403486)

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.

my bitter ways (2, Insightful)

bigmaddog (184845) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402732)

I'm at the point in my web developing days where I don't really care what's in the standard, so long as it is unambiguous and everyone adheres to it. I am doomed to be eternally disappointed.

Re:my bitter ways (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402888)

In all my years of programming, I have yet to see a completely clear, unambiguous standard. They don't exist, since English does a poor job at concise specification of behavior. That is why smart people participate in interoperability tests for new protocols to reconcile the different interpretations of different developers. Example: many years ago, ACC LAN center developed an XNS implementation that worked perfectly talking to other copies of itself, but failed miserably with other vendors' implementations. Why? Because the C standard at the time didn't specify the order of allocation of bitfields, and the developer had assumed LSB first allocation when instead it was doing MSB first.

Re:my bitter ways (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403302)

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 (4, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402740)

And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.

Re:InfoWorld SUCKS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402864)

Not only that, whenever I load Infoworld's website my Windows 7 PC reports a "low memory" error!

Re:InfoWorld SUCKS (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402950)

And here is what to expect from an InfoWorld article - very little substance littered over at least 5 pages soaked with advertisements.

You expect that there will be some substance to it? I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

I understand the substance of your complaint (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402970)

however I would assert that

(please click the next comment below the parent to see more insight)

I understand the substance of your complaint (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403068)

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 (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403188)

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!)

What are the security risk? (1, Insightful)

koan (80826) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402748)

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:What are the security risk? (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402840)

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 security fixes (how successful that is varies by browser) and not when users install updated versions of the Flash plug-in (which is never, to a first approximation).

Re:What are the security risk? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402924)

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 standards compliant POP and IMAP clients collectively? Would you feel more secure using Outlook for your e-mail or taking your pick of any e-mail client that supports POP and IMAP?

Re:What are the security risk? (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403076)

This is a perfectly valid question and a point I don't see raised very often, and something I immediately think of when I hear the word 'overhaul'. Why is this marked troll?

Web Forms 2.0 (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402790)

By far the most useful feature for web developers. Data validation with JavaScript off via new input types, available now in Opera. So sad they didn't mention that in the article.

Legacy browsers (1)

olau (314197) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402828)

...and a version for legacy browsers that falls back on outdated rendering tricks

It doesn't have to be that grim. I've written a charting library for Javascript using the HTML canvas, and thank God some people have written an emulation library for IE so (most) things just work as expected when you include the library (and do a little secret dance). So I don't have to maintain two code bases. This can probably happen again. Never underestimate the momentum of thousands of angry developers.

I don't think the browsers are quite ready to replace Flash and similar for little arcade/action games, yet though, the real-time properties aren't good enough yet.

Could use an update to HTTP protocol as well (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402832)

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:Could use an update to HTTP protocol as well (1)

molo (94384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402982)

What, never heard of deflate encoding? mod_gzip.

-molo

Re:Could use an update to HTTP protocol as well (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403328)

He's probably referring to the fact HTTP headers are around half a KB per request and never compressed.

Good luck on that. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402850)

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".

Re:Good luck on that. (1)

BitwiseX (300405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403198)

I don't believe they have that privilege. It's a standard. They'll make a browser that's compliant (sorta...) and keep all their extra IE "goodies" in there as well. (iframe tag comes to mind...later standarized in HTML4... only your favorite deity know why..).

Re:Good luck on that. (1)

chentiangemalc (1710624) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403212)

how does HTML5 eliminate Silverlight? Microsoft have already starting implmeneting components of the HTML5, co-chaired the HTML5 working group in W3C since the beginnging and continues to participate in it. both technologies can co-exist, and they are different. Silverlight applications can be used for web, desktop or mobile applications. More importantly development is based around .NET framework, and includes powerful development tools, both from an artist and developer perspective. In addition some things are lacking in HTML 1) if you want to create a rich DVR-like experience with live video, you need a technology like Silverlight. Silverlight's HD smooth streaming allows for picture in picture, pausing live video, rewinding, slow motion and downstreaming when bandwith slows down. With smooth streaming, the buffering is minimized and you can jump to different spots of the video almost in real-time. 2) Content protection/DRM does not exist in the video tag in HTML. This will prevent some companies from posting videos in HTML5 3) Limited by JavaScript. Javascript does not provide a true parallelism, Javascript is a cross between a functional and object-oriented language, limits code sharing, slower than .NET. Finally one HTML5 may not prove better than plugins is different implementations of the standard and JavaScript (i.e incomplete) which we already see across all browsers...and this problem is not just Microsoft...Chrome,Safari, Firefox as well don't render certain pages the same. Using a framework can ensure standard viewing experience across any browser.

Flash/SL are still the only way to share a/v (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402858)

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 meeting/collaboration functionalities that are increasingly important for businesses and online/remote learning, where the _least_ proprietary solutions are currently Flash-based on the client end.

Bizna7ch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402946)

a popular '8edws [goat.cx]

What's the problem? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402962)

Web developers may be stuck maintaining two versions of their sites How is that any worse than what we have now, where developers are stuck maintaining a version of their site for IE, another for Netscape/Mozilla, and ignoring the fact that their site doesn't work on most other (e.g. mobile) browsers? At least a viable HTML 5 standard holds out the hope of eventually needing only a single version of each website. Google "browser detection" if you don't think supporting multiple browsers is already a problem today.

I'm probably the minority, but (4, Interesting)

McBeer (714119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403038)

Honestly I'm not rooting for html 5 to replace flash/Silverlight for RIA. I don't like having to have 5 times as many tests in my matrix (one for each browser). I don't like having to write ajax shims whenever I want to use the db from the client. I don't like how hard it is to make reusable html controls that can't break other parts of the site. I don't like how javascript scales up for larger projects... the list goes on. I'm welcome some improvements to html+javascript and for using it to display documents. That said, It simply isn't designed for RIA. Flash/Silverlight are.

And nothing of value was changed. (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403098)

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.

Is this any different from the last 10 years compensating for people and entire institutions clinging to NN 4, IE 5.5, IE Mac, IE 6, IE 7, shit CSS support vs. tables, or having JS turned off?

No? Fine then. Budget time and funds as normal. Glad to know BrowserShots and QuirksMode still have a bright future ahead.

The funny part (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403114)

At the last meet of Providence Geeks I heard quite a bit about HTML5. But I have yet to find a decent how-to for it, nor a decent list of tags, etc. available. It's just a horrible mish-mash right now. And FTA, 21 years for full deployment. I said 5 years.

Silverlight? (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403136)

What has no beginning can have no end.

Re:Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403244)

Netflix.com

The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Re:Silverlight? (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403390)

You sir, are wrong: The common hot dog has two ends, and no beginning.

HTML5? Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403166)

Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no video codec will replace your flash player, no javascript can take the place of a well designed ActiveX plugin and no web standard will change the way the internet works.

I'm sorry, but Clifford Stoll made my day.

I love standards . . . (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403228)

. . . because there are so many to choose!

If Adobe adds an 'Export to HTML 5' option (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403250)

doesn't that make Flash a great HTML 5 editor?

Old (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403404)

This is OLD news. I've been using "<!DOCTYPE html>" on all new sites at least the last year now, and any web developers who aren't investigating and/or anticipating HTML5 now that it is being implemented in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, (IE9? not sure) are really just paving the way for their successors. With Gears, Google has shown off a bunch of these new features (most interestingly IMO the script-accessible local data store) and now that they're taking Gears off the market (not that it had a sizable market to speak of), I think it's a sign we should all begin to make use of the new stuff (still with graceful fallback, of course).

I'm not expecting anything from HTML5, because it has already lived up to my expectations.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?