×

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!

How HTML5 Will Change the Web

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the heard-this-before dept.

IT 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

One data model (1)

melonman (608440) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664242)

Doesn't HTML5 JS still provide XSLT as well as DOM?

Re:One data model (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664524)

XLST is not a data model. It is however a different language than Javascript, and could be used to transform some other data model to DOM on the fly. Also I can't see JSON being replaced by the one true XML any time soon.

Re:One data model (1)

melonman (608440) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666240)

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 (5, Interesting)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665478)

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.

Re:The one real data model: XML (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665798)

In the past, whenever someone has recommended XHTML on Slashdot, there are generally been cries of "It's too much work to make it validate!" Now, that might be true for Joe Average who just wants to put up a simple personal website (but he's more likely to use a CMS anyway), but if you're an experienced developer, than I for the life of me can't understand how writing valid XHTML can be considered too hard.

Closing tags, for example, should come naturally. Do you leave parentheses out when you're writing in a scripting language? Emacs at least at NXML-mode which shows you immediately if you've made a mistake that will not let the document validate.

And anyone who has had to extract data from a webpage ought to adore valid, semantically-meaningful XHTML, because it makes the process effortless whereas HTML requires specialized, not always accurate libs and a lot of work.

Re:The one real data model: XML (5, Informative)

Jeremy Visser (1205626) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665818)

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 (1, Interesting)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665828)

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 (3, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665982)

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:The one real data model: XML (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665904)

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 (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666318)

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.

  • A HTML5 parser has many more potential code routes: with quotes, without quotes, overlapping, non-overlapping, I believe it needs a much more complex state machine to provide the flexibility. there is more conditionals in processing a document and generating the tree.
  • A XHTML document can be validated by DTDs or XSchema. Validating HTML5 requires a program as complicated as a browser (to handle the complex cases)
  • XHTML generates a well understood tree structure. A browser's implementers have to make a decision themselves. What happens if two browsers make a different decision?
  • Assuming a HTML file is well-formed,
  • HTML browsers have to 'repair' the document because the developer couldn't be bothered to make sure his markup is valid. As a result, browsers respond by beginning to accept the invalid data and it becomes status quo. The 'HTML' standard is NOT absolutely defined!
  • A XHTML engine should be more maintainable than a HTML one. Simply because the XHTML one can be verified but the HTML is more difficult to do so. You cannot remove 'hacks' from a HTML engine because they become the 'interface'. People WILL come to rely on them.

If markup was a programming language, it's like comparing HTML5 as the dynamically typed language that accepts whatever you throw at it and XHTML5 is a rigid statically typed language.

IMHO, it's better to have clever data structures rather than clever programs. XHTML is a smart format requires a dumb program whereas HTML is a dumb format and requires a smart program.

The web developers should understand the markup they use to develop. It's their responsibility as a developer.

Re:The one real data model: XML (3, Interesting)

mortonda (5175) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666154)

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:The one real data model: XML (2, Interesting)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666336)

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 new elements in HTML5 look like alternatives to div's with unique ID's ( vs

) and I can see where it would make style sheets a little cleaner, and the intended layout of a document a bit more clear. But it seems to be, as you say, messy. Advantageous, though.

The kludge comes from new capabilities that formerly required Javascript. I rather prefer the static-ness of HTML and reliance on a script for the dynamic-ness, but times are changing, and dynamic pages are where it's at. Might as well simplify their development.

Not sure what the point of this post was, but eh.

Re:The one real data model: XML (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666372)

And of course, I forgot to post that as plain old text. So my tags were rendered. Blah.

(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">)

As always... (4, Informative)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664274)

The link you really wanted where everything is on one page: http://www.infoworld.com/print/128080 [infoworld.com]

Re:As always... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664728)

Thanks. For some reason, the first page of the article seems to defeat Reader in Safari, but you can use Reader to read the rest of the article from page 2 on.

One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

germ!nation (764234) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664292)

The problem with browser rendered languages till now is that they have been at the mercy of interpretation differences by different vendors. Is this really likely to change?

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664550)

Letting the browser render the content to how the user sees fit is a feature, not a bug!

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32664564)

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:One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664716)

Are you from adobe?

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664942)

No because of the " interoperability, accessibility" portion of the post. Adobe Flash isn't about interoperability (Linux x64) and accessibility (Flash as a plugin).

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665608)

He is probably a disgruntled XHTML2 supporter, just like me.

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32664956)

Flash coder I see.

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665854)

Kudos for your relative bravery in posting your comment (posted AC)

The failure of standards is that they are always perverted, and giving Flash-like power to webpages will only improve the destructive power of Ads --without any additional plugins, and empowering ad-makers to bombard us in the relative peaceful environment that are iP*s, Blackberries, and Firefox-NoScript. At least I can turn of Flash and annoying Javascript layer ads in some browsers.

That will change. HTML will do some cool things we can't visualize today, yes, but then my plain vanilla browser sure as heck won't have equivalents of say, "turn off HTML5 blink tag."

Re:One standard does not mean one interpretation (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665348)

***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.

"Offers one way of doing things" (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664294)

HTML5 may offer a unified way to do things...but that does not mean that the other ways will just vanish. It will be a long time before HTML5 completely displaces Flash or Java applets, assuming that such a thing even happens. Frankly, I doubt that the popular browsers will even have a reliable implementation of the standard until at least 2013, so HTML5 won't really offer developers anything unified for a while.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (4, Insightful)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664400)

we've waited almost fifteen years for the browser war to settle, we can wait a couple more

also, 40 years of ninja coding (since the beginning of time) gave programmers a great deal of tool for handling platform incompatibilities. just don't do your own cross platform library but rely on precooked libraries

we can make games that run on pc, xbox, and ps3 but we can't manage some browser quirks? just let others provide you compatibility scripts and code happily your stuff on top of them. maybe you'll be hit by the occasional bug, but years of tuning made them pretty good by now.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664442)

As you point out, developers will use a library that resolves the incompatibilities for them. More precisely, they will seek software the levels the field between browsers -- software that already exists, in the form of applets (Flash and Java) and HTML4/JS/etc. libraries. My point was that the current way to deploy applications on the web is not going to disappear just because HTML5 comes out, and that incompatibility between browsers will only ensure that the current methods stick around even longer.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664894)

> 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, much more multi-version and multi-platform than games. You should also realize that comparing console games to web apps is like comparing apples to oranges, making the snark irrelevant as well as false.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32665116)

It was a pointless search to begin with, but I did it for the lulz and now I'm happy because it turns out that duke nukem 3d is the one closest to being able of running everywhere

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664462)

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.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664806)

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:"Offers one way of doing things" (3, Interesting)

Lumbre (1822486) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664674)

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 (for good reason), those that disable JavaScript, etc.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665080)

Whatever happened to XHTML taking over? I remember some people going crazy over it since it would simplify HTML (since HTML 4 was too bulky, whatever) and leave all the layout dirty work to CSS. Seems like HTML5 throws all that out and sticks with the status quo.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (2, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665466)

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 those errors the standard, then they added some cruft on top. Thus HTML5 was born. For some reason, W3C then abandoned the superior standard of XHTML2 and adopted the steaming pile that WHATWG dumped on them.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665642)

As usual, its all political, kinda like an open source app forking then re-merging. XHTML1 was fine, most folks implemented it. Sounds like they are just going to kludge an XHTML5 from HTML5.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666236)

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 fix all implementations - or at least persuade all vendors to fix their implementations. It was even founded not by the companies, but by the people implementing the browsers... The developers spoke, W3C, facing the choice of being made irrelevant, obliged.

Re:"Offers one way of doing things" (2, Interesting)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665138)

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:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665400)

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:"Offers one way of doing things" (1)

jprupp (697660) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665404)

AFAIK Java applets died about half a decade ago. There are some relics here and there, but the web moved on already. Flash will follow. Probably at some point someone will invent more proprietary plugins for the web. I hope this time they don't last as long as Flash did, for the sake of a web based on open standards.

Of course (3, Funny)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664296)

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 (2, Interesting)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664388)

HTML5 will help change the Web, however, the true change that will come to the Web is finally when the Semantic Web will take off; unfortunately no one knows when or if it ever will.

Re:HTML5 Will Help Change The Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32664588)

unfortunately no one knows when or if it ever will.

I know. It won't.

Re:HTML5 Will Help Change The Web (5, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664906)

Semantic web will take off when AI agents will be elaborate enough to fill in all the metadata thet humans don't care about (because they are still better than computer at rebuilding the context of an information). Right now user-entered information has this form : "#GoReds : Arrived at the stadium at 10AM woohoo!" and semantic web expects them to do something like

"<user id=1983744 nick="#GoReds"/> : Arrived at the<location><reference>ElisParkStadiumSouthAfrica</reference><tag>stadium</tag></location> at <datetime><timezone>SouthAfrica</timezone><time>10:00:00</time></datetime> woohoo"

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.

I love flashblock (4, Interesting)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664406)

Will there be possible to have "CanvasBlock" on future browsers or are we stuck with CPU eating html5 animations?

Re:I love flashblock (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664466)

You most certainly can block it -- it resides nicely between two tags. The bigger question is, will asshole web developers use canvases in places where straight up text would have worked just fine, and force us to deal with their CPU eating abominations for no good reason at all?

Re:I love flashblock (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664676)

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 (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664804)

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:I love flashblock (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664888)

You most certainly can block it -- it resides nicely between two tags.

Will blocking the tag stop the underlying javascripts from running?

Re:I love flashblock (1)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665542)

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:I love flashblock (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665482)

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:I love flashblock (1)

LBDobbs (555102) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665558)

The bigger question is, will asshole web developers use canvases in places where straight up text would have worked just fine, and force us to deal with their CPU eating abominations for no good reason at all?

It might be a big question, but it has a little answer: Yes. We have a very long history of "new" technologies becoming available followed by a consistant pattern of hack, crack, and crap from human beings. As long as regular people are doing regular things with the regular tools available are working in that new technology, it will never become standard. People are attached to their point of view and will fight to the death to defend cherished beliefs. It is human nature. It is also human nature to believe that our reason is the right/good/rational reason and others' reasons are the wrong/bad/stupid/irrational reasons.

Re:I love flashblock (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665974)

You most certainly can block it -- it resides nicely between two tags. The bigger question is, will asshole web developers use canvases in places where straight up text would have worked just fine, and force us to deal with their CPU eating abominations for no good reason at all?

You just reminded me of spam where HTML TABLES allowed a spammer to painstakingly post text cell by cell into something that looked like a paragraph. That way, each letter was parsed separately and the word Viagra could not be filtered. Good thing that hasn't caught on since I saw it 5 years ago.

I am curious what else they will use to circumvent filters, and whether spammers are willing to wait for another decade, which seems to be the length it will take IE10 to cover the standard AND be on every PC on the planet. Remember even 2010's IE8 has no HTML5, and IE9 won't support it well. MS will have to bundle their "perfect enough for HTML5" browser on yet another new version of their OS for HTML5 to take off

Re:I love flashblock (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664708)

Well if you want examples of what can be done [youtube.com] , I have demos of work I'm doing on add-ons to a game framework called Akihabara on Youtube. I've built clickable objects, menus, a scrollable console and am currently working on inventories and drag and drops items.

So yes, you can do about anything that you used to do in Flash but you have a greater amount of control over it.

It Won't (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664422)

Somebody has to actually use it first.

Wasn't Youtube supposed to be switching to it months ago?

Re:It Won't (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664542)

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:It Won't (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664750)

Well developers are actually working in it right now. Considering the fact that there are no books on it published yet and browsers just started supporting it, it will start happening soon. For example, I have been working on adding functionality [youtube.com] to a game framework called Akihabara. The game isn't complete and will eventually be multiplayer but it requires reinventing alot of stuff within the limitations of the web and HTML5.

Re:It Won't (3, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665084)

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.

Re:It Won't (3, Informative)

drewness (85694) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665368)

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:It Won't (3, Informative)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665936)

Your information is out of date. Youtube is not going to use H.264 in the future, they're going to use WebM - which is Googles own format they've been pushing especially hard lately. http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com] Opera, Firefox, and Chrome all have WebM support, and Internet Explorer has ways to add in support too. The only major browser that is out of the loop at the moment is Safari.

summary wrong on two counts about "one language" (4, Informative)

lkcl (517947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664430)

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]

advertising (1)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664436)

In a couple weeks Apple is unleashing a new ad campaign all using HTML5 (as opposed to the flash & rich media (java) ads up till this point). Granted they are all going to be only viewable on compatible browsers (everything but IE), it is going to be interesting to watch advertising take on this new medium.

Re:advertising (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664710)

"..Granted they are all going to be only viewable on compatible browsers (everything but IE)..."

So basically they'll advertise to existing customers whom believe html5's unfinished spec is the way to go now? Wouldn't the campaign be more effective to simply e-mail all registered mac owners the html5 ads directly? This seems like the same html5 crap they put on their website that's only viewable via Safari on Snow Leopard when most of the demonstrations are simply css3 and fancy JavaScript image swapping.

I could see Apple having an advertising campaign about html5, but not using JUST html5 as this would simply defeat its purpose of being an effective advertisement.

"Check out the new Apple ads their amazing! Where can I see them, she asked. Just go to www.website.com, he replied. I'm there but all I see is a blank sidebar and header, she said in confusion. What web browser are you using. he asked. The one with the big E icon, she replied. Oh, you need to be on a mac, sorry, he responded in a snarly voice."

Re:advertising (2, Interesting)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665042)

That is almost EXACTLY what I said to the publishers I work with when they asked me about the support for ad servers and HTML5 (which has no support, no surprise).

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 experience (sorry web users, they are going to get more integrated)- It can do some pretty neat stuff. But I digress.

In either case, I agree making a campaign that eliminates IE just to use some technology that is in its embryonic phase is stupid. Not to mention when it is probably geared to people who already have a Mac. But that could also be the point. You already have a devoted user base, might as well advertise to them to sell them the latest product... Like an iPhone 4g.

Granted I do use Firefox and Chrome via my PC... So maybe I'll buy a Mac after these ads. j/k

Where is UVC webcam support? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664438)

When will we get webcam streaming as flash offers?
So far we have text, a codec and artwork.
When will web 2.0 be interactive again?

Geolocation and space (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664446)

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:Geolocation and space (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664586)

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:Geolocation and space (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664614)

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.

Re:Geolocation and space (1)

drumbug1 (1140947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664764)

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?

...a proxy at NASA.

"Change the web"? (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664504)

An ambitious slogan. Things may become easier or faster, but this certainly won't change the web in the same way that say, the web changed how I read the news or how I shop for furniture.

Where have I heard this before? (4, Funny)

shikaisi (1816846) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664508)

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:Where have I heard this before? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664816)

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?

Really, advances in tech is alright, but security remains the issue (something about security and freedom comes to mind). I feel that there is something about the porosity between the user and the web/cloud/network. The transfer of information between elements within a web page seems to be almost transparent. What assurances are there that malicious content is filtered out.
Bad things have been done in the past under the guise of diplomatic immunity.

I know what we must do (1)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664560)

We must take the HTML5 specification and throw it into the Cracks of Doom. That is the only way to stop Ian Hickson from destroying the World of Men.

Re:I know what we must do (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664954)

We must take the HTML5 specification and throw it into the Cracks of Doom. That is the only way to stop Ian Hickson from destroying the World of Men

Remember, Frodo failed in his quest. It took a fuckup to permanently trash everything.

Also, what's with this location thing? Hi, I am anonymous, Long 112 23' 26" East, Lat 35 15' 47" South; catch me if you can.

Re:I know what we must do (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665422)

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 anywhere. Did the ping attribute ever get accepted? I sure would like links I click echoed to Google/Facebook/spammers/etc so they can know that much more about my browsing habits. Not.

Chickens and eggs (1)

billtom (126004) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664784)

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.

better implement CSS3 etc. first... (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664868)

I'd be happier if we hadn't had a moving target to work with for the past 15 years, with new W3C specifications becoming the vogue while major browsers still failed to implement older ones correctly. Also HTML5 is more "different" than "groundbreaking", which will just lead to more incompatibilities in browsers without a big benefit.
How's the W3C reference implementation coming along by the way? :-P

too bad its runs different in all browsers (1, Insightful)

SQLz (564901) | more than 3 years ago | (#32664882)

HTML5 is just another level of bullshit to worry about when writing a web page that needs to render properly on multiple browsers.

watchbook (-1, Troll)

watchbook (1840392) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665126)

It's 2010 replica watches [watchbook.net] prides itself onreplica watch [watchbook.net] offering its customers fake watches [watchbook.net] the broadest range of name brand mens fake watch [watchbook.net] ladies watches at tag heuer watch [watchbook.net] the lowest prices anywhere. tag heuer watches [watchbook.net] In fact our daily deals offer pricing tag heuer [watchbook.net] at liquidation prices. From Seiko to Movado to Invicta to over 60 other watch brands at up to 90% off. Since 1997 we have sold hundreds of thousands rolex watch [watchbook.net] of watches to hundreds of thousands of rolex watches [watchbook.net] satisfied customers. Please read our constant and consistent positive feedback because when it comes to great deals on genuine, brand new name brand watches we cannot rolex [watchbook.net] be beat.I used to come to the old servers, cartier watch [watchbook.net] for me the fun of the game is a good businessman, from the very beginning to the latest version of the version of I along the way, for their own performance is still cartier watches [watchbook.net] relatively satisfied with the main method cartier [watchbook.net] to raise my bar to make aion gold I make money without relying on production equipment, alchemists and gathering alone, first of all you have to Tunhuo had,omega watch [watchbook.net] how much crit stones can how much,omega watches [watchbook.net] but I suggest that sufficient funds omega [watchbook.net] in your case you can do this, do not go as far as possible,breitling watch [watchbook.net] if they earn lessclose to this stone, because it requires a bit of your intelligence to make Fill out the adjustment form,breitling watches [watchbook.net] pay through Pay Pal and acquire your breitling [watchbook.net] aion gold in about 30 minutes.

Almost humorous (1)

jkiol (1050424) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665144)

As web designers look to increase the functionality of their websites, people are always looking for ways to reduce their capabilities. Flashblock/Adblock/Pop-up blockers and finally even private browsing features built right into web browsers. Why is there this huge disconnect between what designers are doing v.s. what people like to see? I understand the need for ads, but the seizure inducing flash pop-ups are just insane, don't designers realize that they are actually irritating their potential customer rather than enticing them to click on the ad?

Security? (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665146)

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.

There is HTML5 (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665474)

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? (4, Insightful)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665488)

***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:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Athanasius (306480) | more than 3 years ago | (#32666000)

If it's to a well-defined area I see no problem, especially if you can set a quota on it to head off a DoS by full-disk. So long as you know not to implicitly trust anything in that location, given its sole purpose is for this storage, that is.

However I am puzzled by:

On the downside, these databases are buried deeply in the system folder, so making backups may not be the simplest step.

Why can't it be in a per-user folder inside their profile ? I thought we were finally getting away from the Windows pain of apps keeping settings, logs, saved files, screenshots etc. inside the application installation itself. Is this just one or two browsers having a stupid implementation at this stage ?

input elements will have a big impact (1)

OlRickDawson (648236) | more than 3 years ago | (#32665866)

All this talk about canvas and video tags is interesting, but not what I'm looking for. I just want those date, number and patern input elements. Once those are in place and widely used, my business javascript will be greatly simplified. Yes, I know that I can use third party tools, but that is still running javascript. Having those elements native to the browser will speed up perfomance and cut down on the amount of javascript tremendously.

It doesn't matter.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32666300)

....until IE6 finally dies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...