×

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 To Use HTML5 Today

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-i-wanted-it-yesterday dept.

Programming 155

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Dori Smith offers developers a hands-on guide to using HTML5 today. 'Many of the media reports about HTML5 have focused on the politics, the "not until 2022" sound bite, or on HTML5's prospects as a "Flash killer." The reality of HTML5 is simply that it's the long-needed and long-overdue update to HTML4 — and you can start to implement it today,' Smith writes. Video, semantic tags, smart form input validation — Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way. Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

155 comments

heh (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875146)

Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv

Shanks a lot for the info ::fft fft::

Re:heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875658)

i thought it was pretty clear that html5 isn't even going to get off the ground...

http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html contains a good few reasons why those actually building web applications don't want or need another half arsed solution. And this is in relation to video, the only domain in which html5 was ever likely to get anywhere!!!!.

Re:heh (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877264)

Pardon the interruption, and sorry I'm a little late to the party, but I wish they would link the quick loading single page version [infoworld.com] of TFA rather than five ad-laden three paragraph apiece pages.

I avoid infoworld and many other such sites because of this cluelessness. Annoying your readers is a grat way to keep them from coming back. This is the first infoworld article I've read in quite some time; now I remember why I quit going there.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (2, Insightful)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875248)

We wait around while the W3C tries to pull it's thumb out of it's ass.

How hard is it to decide on a new standard? Do the members not check their email more than once a year?

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (4, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875302)

Why wait? I use HTML5 today. I start documents with <!DOCTYPE html> and code away. The W3C validator even validates HTML5 documents. What are you waiting for? Maybe for Internet Explorer, but that's Microsoft's responsibility to update.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (2, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875452)

Maybe for Internet Explorer, but that's Microsoft's responsibility to update.

And it's web developers' responsibility to make sure that their shit works for its target audience, even if that means holding back because the clueless masses that comprise said audience insist on using Microsoft's cripple-ware.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875482)

Yes, of course, but we can't blame the W3C for deficiencies in Internet Explorer, now can we? If we're waiting on Internet Explorer to catch up, we should blame Microsoft for lagging behind.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877370)

Blame whomever you want, I still have to go to a client and explain to them why the webpage I designed for them doesn't work right in the most popular browser on the market (and then explain to them why they shouldn't fire me).

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878908)

I wasn't blaming them. I thought that referring to IE as "cripple-ware" would make it clear where I place the blame.

I was just offering another POV on what seemed to me to be a rather cavalier attitude towards supporting what is, for better or for worse (mostly worse), still the majority browser.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (2, Informative)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875518)

You can include a tiny bit of javascript and have IE7+ (and 6 as well), "understand" all of the new elements. Google it.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876110)

You don't need Javascript, just add some CSS telling it what the new tags are (article{ display:block; }, etc.). Of course, the tags that are easy to include aren't the interesting part.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876962)

That doesn't work. IE doesn't add the new tags to the DOM properly; tags withing the <article> tag will be added as siblings to the <article>, rather than children. The only way I've found to make an HTML5 site work in IE is to surround all the new tags with old tags, and reference the old tags in the CSS.
For example: <div class="article"><article>...

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877288)

Have you tried the shiv technique mentioned in TFS?

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877784)

Only just now. It works. I'm a little hesitant to rely on it though, as the styling would be completely messed up for IE users with javascript disabled. But then again, the percentage of IE users with javascript disabled is probably very low.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876350)

You can also set up a routine that instructs the user how to install a real browser. Simple.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (2, Insightful)

cervo (626632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876370)

This is not flame bait. A site that doesn't work with Internet Explorer is ignoring a huge chunk of the market. Most businesses cannot afford to ignore the IE users...

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

Timex (11710) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877640)

And it's web developers' responsibility to make sure that their shit works for its target audience, even if that means holding back because the clueless masses that comprise said audience insist on using Microsoft's cripple-ware.

It's really pretty simple: The W3C should be defining the standard, and if a browser developer doesn't keep up, then they'll just lose out.

If we waited for a Mozilla and Microsoft to adhere to standards 100%, then we'd still be dealing with 1.0 or 1.1 specs. Instead, we're looking at HTML5.

Let W3C write the standard. Allowing multiple source tags for video elements is brilliant, and will make it easy enough for web developers to work around the problem of archaic browsers.

Of course, how or why anyone would not support "open source / royalty free" codecs is beyond me. It's not like they'll be paying a fortune for license fees...

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

antnil (1601463) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876046)

Problem is, most computer users are usung IE because they dont know how to get another browser and install it on their computers, so until then, the MSIE defacto standard still forces web developers to use hacks, workarounds and other crap of the same nature, to make a given site IE-Friendly. Until then, HTML5 will remain a cute and fun buzzword for marketing and sales... and a headache for the web developers. Whenever you see the word "Work-Around" it means alot of work, it means that code wont be clean, and it means it will not be so easy to maintain, which, from my experience, is crucial for web dev.

And let's face it, Microsoft will take as little time as possible to support the standard if ever: they have their own technologies and agendas to promote, just like Apple has is pushing its tech and agenda with iOS ...

This kind of crap is what made me get out of the web dev business and after over a year, i dont regret if for a second. I even sleep better at night!

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876938)

they have their own technologies and agendas to promote, just like Apple has is pushing its tech and agenda with iOS ...

You mean just like Apple is pushing HTML 5?

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875524)

The problem isn't "deciding on a new standard"(though there certainly can be engineering challenges and whatnot), the problem is that the W3C doesn't have any power beyond a modicum of respect and whatever consensus it can hammer out.

They could pump out purely theoretical standards, either with no real implementations, or an alpha implementation stashed on somebody's git repo somewhere, all they like, as fast as their merry little legs could carry them; but that would be basically meaningless.

The delay comes out of the fact that, unless enough parties from the various browser makers can be convinced to care, the standard is dead on arrival. Politicking is slow.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876696)

What are you talking about? There are multiple implementations of various parts of HTML5. Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE9 all implement parts of it. Often the same parts. HTML5 is a result of browser makers getting together.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877990)

What are you talking about?

He's responding to a post. Did you care to check?

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875604)

Mod parent up. He's just saying what everyone is thinking.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875722)

Politics is never easy.

Especially when the various members have a way to profit from making things proprietary at the expense of everyone else.

The recent wrangle on a standard video codec is a prime example with everyone pushing their own pet patented algorithm.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875868)

have a look at http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-June/000005.html
this lets folk know that html5 has been gathering steam since 2004 FFS!!!!! lol!!!!

no wonder html5 is such a dead loss - with the full weight of the w3c behind them what are the chances it was ever going to get anywhere!!!!!

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... (1)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878688)

We wait around while the W3C tries to pull it's thumb out of it's ass.

How hard is it to decide on a new standard? Do the members not check their email more than once a year?

The standard is basically decided upon. Most of the important parts look about the same now as they did two years ago. What we're waiting for is implementation. It's all very well to write a spec, but implementing it efficiently and correctly takes far more time. This is why every new browser release touts all the new parts of the HTML5 standard they implemented: the spec is mostly stable, and browsers are in the process of implementing it.

I do think you're underestimating the difficulty and complexity of writing a several-hundred-page spec, though. There's a reason it took a few years.

Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (4, Interesting)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875254)

Is HTML 5 still structured like XHTML? I hope that it is, because one of the biggest pains in the HTML standard was the inconsistent syntax. I think a strength of strict XHTML was that it could be easily parsed by an XML parser, and if we are going back to the syntax of HTML 4 I think that's a step backwards.

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (4, Informative)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875294)

There is an XML syntax for HTML5 that you can optionally use.

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875886)

So, if a developer opts to not use it, what does he use? Are we back to the days of un-balanced paragraph and table cell tags, with each web browser making its own assumptions regarding conflicting layout possibilities?

        -dZ.

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876052)

Then he uses the SGML binding instead of the XML one. As with HTML, this has well-defined semantics. Each tag indicates in the DTD whether it requires closing, overlapping tags (e.g. <b><i></b></i>) are not permitted, just as they were not with HTML. The parser needs to be aware of tag semantics, so self-closing tags (e.g. br) must be used carefully and you can not use other XML formats (e.g. SVG) inline.

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (1)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876730)

The HTML syntax. While it is allowed to do, e.g., <!doctype html><p>foo<p>bar, there are (as there were in HTML 4) strict rules about when a tag can be omitted. As for parsing, HTML5 defines how to map any character stream into a DOM (from which normal CSS rules can be applied, without knowledge of the raw source, consistent with how browsers are already architectured) -- defining this was a large part in the reason for HTML5 existing at all.

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876234)

I don't think that it helps in a sense GP implies. If HTML5 was XML-only, that means that any automated tools (such as web scrapers) can just use XML parsers to process content. If it's up to the author, that means we'll have to keep dealing with special parsers for tag soup for decades to come.

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (1)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876788)

Yet realistically if HTML5 was purely XML, how would it help with all the existing content on the web? What would be the roadmap for transitioning to XML from HTML? XHTML 1.0 became a REC over ten years ago now, and we're not much closer to a pure XML web now than we were then. The big advantage of HTML5 with dealing with arbitrary content is that it has defined parsing rules for any input stream, mapping it to a DOM. This means libraries that parse XML into a DOM can be interchanged with libraries that parse HTML (several already exist following HTML5, see the Validator.nu/Gecko parser [validator.nu] (Java/C++) and html5lib [google.com] (Python, and far less regularly updated PHP/Ruby).

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876256)

...one of the biggest pains in the HTML standard was the inconsistent syntax.

Can you elaborate, or give examples?

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876536)

The markup->DOM algorithm is completely specified, so it should be less of a problem (and they are trying to make sure to have at least 2 separate working implementations of the parser, so there is even a chance they will get it right).

Re:Is HTML 5 still structured as XML? (0)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878750)

Is HTML 5 still structured like XHTML? I hope that it is, because one of the biggest pains in the HTML standard was the inconsistent syntax. I think a strength of strict XHTML was that it could be easily parsed by an XML parser, and if we are going back to the syntax of HTML 4 I think that's a step backwards.

It's not a step backwards, because we never actually had a web that could be parsed with an XML parser. If you want to parse the web, you need to be able to parse tag soup, because most authors will never get with the XML program. So HTML5 defines a horrifyingly complicated but well-defined non-XML "tag soup" markup. This is designed so that an HTML5 parser will actually parse web pages the same as browsers, thus as the author intended (or as close as possible). So just replace your XML parser with an HTML5 parser, and you can parse real-life web pages, not just the tiny minority of web pages that actually are well-formed XML (Wikipedia, and what else?).

Another major benefit of this is that browsers will all parse the same pages the same way. Previously, each one had its own idiosyncratic pile of hacks to address specific bug reports they received. Firefox 4 now uses an HTML5 parser, and WebKit is working on one, so eventually they should all parse everything interoperably.

Of course, you can still use XML if you want. HTML5 permits that too.

All well and good... (0, Troll)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875264)

But why do I have a sinking feeling that adoption of this new standard will be held back by Internet Explorer's atrocious handling of it?

I mean, IE7 is meant to be the most advanced and standards compliant IE there is, and yet it STILL can't render pages correctly; pages that Firefox, Safari, Opera and Konqueror all have no problems with.

Re:All well and good... (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875358)

But why do I have a sinking feeling that adoption of this new standard will be held back by Internet Explorer's atrocious handling of it?

I think between Google Chrome Frame and HTML 5 Shiv, MS will have a lot less power to hold back Web standards than they usually wield.

Re:All well and good... (0, Flamebait)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875402)

I think you mean "because they no longer have 98% market share of browsers".

At this point IE is a minority browser. I haven't tested any web site I've developed in the last 5 years in IE. It's just not worth the time to develop for a broken and ancient browser like IE.

Re:All well and good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875460)

A minority browser? Still has about 60% of the market share, so tough to call it that.

Re:All well and good... (1, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875748)

I have to ask what you mean by "minority". I hate IE as much as anyone, but the fact is, it is used by more people than all other browsers put together. I don't tailor my view of reality based on what I like, and you should get out of the habit.

Whoa - I went looking for a link to give my claims some weight - and I found this:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [w3schools.com]

I guess if you are only measuring home users and technical users, you might get figures like that! But, when you include ALL COMPUTERS, you get quite different results.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 [hitslink.com]

Re:All well and good... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875756)

You have to wonder what's going on when having a broken out of date IE6 is considered a feature in corporate environments on account of how badly it breaks facebook and youtube.

Re:All well and good... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875758)

Who mods this crap up? IE is still over 50% and by far the most popular browser. Mainstream web developers need to test in IE or have a workaround for IE. IE's dominance is still a huge influence on Web development. The difference is, there are now practical ways to rewrite code on the fly for IE, or install a plug-in in IE that makes it behave as though it were standards compliant for a site.

Re:All well and good... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875808)

At this point IE is a minority browser. I haven't tested any web site I've developed in the last 5 years in IE. It's just not worth the time to develop for a broken and ancient browser like IE.

Just because you're not testing ofr it doesn't mean that people aren't using it. It looks like it largely depends on the type of site -- more technically-oriented sites will typically have it as a minority; while mainstream and ecommerce sites will more often show it at the majority (in the US) or close to majority.

Re:All well and good... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876260)

At this point IE is a minority browser.

You have a curious definition of "minority" if it matches "65% of the market".

Sure, it may well be a minority browser for your audience, it it's an overly technical one, or if you live in Eastern Europe. But most people aren't so lucky.

Re:All well and good... (3, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875428)

IE8 is a lot further along than IE7; and IE9, which should hit beta later this year, supports all HTML5 elements.

Re:All well and good... (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876440)

IE8 is a lot further along than IE7; and IE9, which should hit beta later this year, supports all HTML5 elements.

No, IE9 passes all of Microsoft's HTML5 tests.

Which is very different than supporting all HTML5 elements. (And even more different than meaningfully supporting all HTML5 elements.)

Re:All well and good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32878716)

Vapourware to the rescue!

Re:All well and good... (1)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878940)

IE9, which should hit beta later this year, supports all HTML5 elements.

Not even close. No browser is even close. Large swathes of the HTML5 spec are totally unimplemented. If you restrict yourself solely to new elements and not other new features (I don't know why you would), no browser implements <progress> [whatwg.org], <meter> [whatwg.org], <details> [whatwg.org], <menu> [whatwg.org], and several others. Some elements are implemented by at least one browser but not by IE9, like <keygen>, <datalist>, <output>, maybe a couple others.

Overall, IE9 is a huge step forward from IE8 and drastically closes the standards-compliance gap with other browsers, but it's still behind.

Re:All well and good... (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875434)

IE8 was released last year and passes Acid2. IE9 will be released soon, and it performs much better than IE8 on Acid3 (the latest preview scores 83/100). Yes, they are still lagging behind, but they're at least trying to keep up with the pack.

Incoming incessent fucktard sopssa trolling. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875346)

Sopssa is a fucking worthless troll. Remember it moderators!

Peace out!

a single year (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875412)

I predict that in a single year from now, the vast majority of browsers being run will be html5 ready; it's only been in the past few years that the browsers began self-updating; everyone wants html5, and so developers will be firmly able to count on it existing very soon.

Flash has gotta go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875466)

The sooner the better, IMO. Flash is just a web killer. Every other time Adobe updates it (which is all-too-frequent), the thing gets unstable to the point of crashing IE. I've got a couple of pages that I have to view with Flash turned off completely so that I can even view them without crashing. It's ridiculous from a company the size of Adoble and something as pervasive as Flash that it's written as poorly as it is. And that's ignoring how much a dozen Flash ads on a page slows the browser to a crawl. Jobs is correct in this case - Adobe Flash is garbage.

Re:Flash has gotta go (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875796)

Ever thought about sending a report to the owners of the pages that crash your browser? Tell 'em Flash sucks, and tell 'em why.

Re:Flash has gotta go (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876316)

I can't even remember the last time Flash crashed Firefox on me. In fact the last time it crashed was on an AJAX site. While I don't doubt Flash can cause issues too laying blanket blame on Adobe doesn't seem correct.

Re:Flash has gotta go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32876320)

I've never had Flash crash on me. It's weird. I've heard tons of people saying it crashes on them, but of the 5-6 computers I maintain, nobody complaining about crashes -- and these machines are at least 3 years old. My current rig is 5 years old (with a-typical configuration for an end user: a dual processor Xeon system with an AGP based ATi HD 3850). Add to that, I've been running Seamonkey browser (Firefox based browser suite) just to add even more a-typical / nonstandard / probably not well tested platform on my main rig (IE6/7/8 on the others.)

The only slowdowns I've ever noticed with Flash are high resolution games and (not really since 10.1) choppiness in HD video. Setting to low resolution fixes the choppiness. I've never experienced a slowdown with multiple ads on the page. I use only use Flashblock on ancient systems (a Pentium 3 @ 500MHz) since I don't expect anything (Flash included) to run well.

Perhaps you should make sure you're virus free (try a liveCD just in case), reformat, try using a different browser, updating your computer (hardware wise)? It's entirely possible browser interaction is gumming things up. I mean, my 1GHz Nexus One seem to run Flash perfectly well without crashing -- and that plugin is *still* in beta. That's probably less then half the horsepower available on your main rig, and it's running fairly well. If it's not less then half your horsepower, you may want to consider a new computer. =P

Oh, out of curiousity, what websites are you referring to when you say they crash or are slow? I would like to test them out myself to see if they can't reproduce the problem.

XHTML or HTML5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32875568)

What should I be using? (Or I shouldn't care?)

Standards (2, Interesting)

Irick (1842362) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875632)

HTML is not a finished standard. Should this prevent people from starting to use it? No, in fact, hell no, we should start using it right now to increase the uptake and motivate the developments of better technologies for utilizing it. A trial by fire will by itself weed out the un-needed portions of HTML 5 and perhaps show the usefulness of features that would otherwise be left out. Should IE's abysmal standards compliance prevent you from writing properly formated code? No, again, you should always motivate the use of new web technologies for helping to implement an advanced and open web.

Minor improvements (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875656)

(Read the "print" version [infoworld.com] of the article, instead of the "tiny blocks of text spread over many pages of ads" version.)

I have misgivings about HTML5. It gives the page more control, and the user less. That's been a trend in HTML for years, and it's getting worse.

I'm dreading "canvas". Ad blockers need to get smarter. Noticed that popups are winning over Firefox's popup blocking? We're also going to see pages that use 100% of the CPU just for display. We're going to need a browser option for "don't run canvas code for windows that aren't on top.

The "input type" [w3.org] mechanism for forms is lame. There are a number of standard types like "tel", but it's just text with no line breaks. They should have provided for either regular expressions or syntax like the COBOL Picture clause ("CREDIT_CARD_NUMBER PIC 9999-9999-9999-9999").

Dynamically-loaded fonts have been working for some time now in all the mainstream browsers. (IE6 and Firefox 3.5 were the last mainstream browsers not to have it.) We've been playing with that for our steampunk site [aetherltd.com]. Downloadable fonts without anti-aliasing turn out to look ugly for small font sizes, because most of the display-type fonts have too much detail and not enough hinting for small font sizes. (In an annoying piece of Apple incompatibility, the iPad requires fonts in SVG, of all things. Everybody else, including Microsoft, is going to Web Open Font Format.) I'd recommend against using this feature much unless you have a good sense of typography. (Bad example: our steampunk search engine. [sitetruth.com])

Re:Minor improvements (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875862)

The iPad does not require fonts in svg. Like other modern browsers it supports @font-face using standard OTF fonts. iPhone does the same with ios 4.

Not sure if web open font is required personally, but if catches on I'm sure weblog will support it.

Re:Minor improvements (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877168)

The iPad does not require fonts in svg. Like other modern browsers it supports @font-face using standard OTF fonts.

Typophile [typophile.com], TypeKit [typekit.com] and Fast Company [fastcompany.com] all say the iPhone/iPad don't support TTF or WOFF downloadable fonts, just SVG. Also, selection doesn't work right for SVG fonts on the iPad, and loading multiple weights of the same font is said to crash the browser.

Please disable Jobs Reality Distortion Field before using.

Re:Minor improvements (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875900)

I have misgivings about HTML5. It gives the page more control, and the user less. That's been a trend in HTML for years, and it's getting worse.

I disagree. HTML5 gives the user more control. Right now we're hampered by proprietary plug-ins to provide functionality, like Silverlight and Flash. With HTML5 taking over those functions, the browser codes it, so you can choose which browser you want based upon how well it lets you control the elements on the page. It's basically moving parts of Web pages from single vendor closed implementations to open implementations that compete to serve you best.

Well, that and a lot more nice tags to break up pages into sections, add support for custom fonts, etc. But that doesn't mean the user loses control. These are markup languages meant to be interpreted. If you don't like custom fonts, noting stops a browser from offering an option of rendering the all as a font of your choosing in the color of your choosing, etc.

We're going to need a browser option for "don't run canvas code for windows that aren't on top.

And we can add it. Moreover, we can add a lot more finely grained controls than that, since it is now specified in the canvas element instead of a Flash movie. It's no longer just "run" or "don't run". It can be "run but never let the sound get above this volume, confine it to the page, and modify the way it runs so it never overlaps any text". Hell, we could add the option of making canvas elements that overlap other elements 90% transparent by default and always having a close and display button.

They should have provided for either regular expressions...

They did. It's even demonstrated in the article.

Re:Minor improvements (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876120)

HTML5 gives the user more control. Right now we're hampered by proprietary plug-ins to provide functionality, like Silverlight and Flash

The grandparent's point, I think, is that Flash is not integrated into the main content of the page, so it's easy to turn off. With canvas, the JavaScript used for the animated ads is run in the same context as the JavaScript used for essential page functionality. It's much harder to disable the intrusive ads without disabling the rest of the page.

Re:Minor improvements (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876980)

The grandparent's point, I think, is that Flash is not integrated into the main content of the page, so it's easy to turn off.

I guess that depends upon the page, doesn't it? On some pages Flash is added for ads and is not related to the main content. In others, like Hulu, Flash IS the main content of the page. For still others, (like Homestarrunner) the whole page including navigation is built in Flash.

If you only use Flash on sites that only use it for ads, then I agree this will make it more complex to block those ads. On the other hand, for those that rely upon content currently in Flash and other closed plug-in formats, this is a net win for control.

Re:Minor improvements (1)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878834)

The grandparent's point, I think, is that Flash is not integrated into the main content of the page, so it's easy to turn off. With canvas, the JavaScript used for the animated ads is run in the same context as the JavaScript used for essential page functionality. It's much harder to disable the intrusive ads without disabling the rest of the page.

No, it would be trivial. Just display all canvases as blank, and don't display their contents until the user lets them. You can treat canvas operations as no-ops, or have them execute but not draw the results to the screen until the user requests it.

This won't stop pages from using 100% CPU, but they can do that anyway. They usually don't, and I don't expect canvas to change that.

Re:Minor improvements (1)

hedronist (233240) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876206)

Actually, that page is an excellent example of why you shouldn't use a display font for normal text. It immediately went on my list of What you don't want your site to look like websites that I show to my customers.

Font issues. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876994)

Actually, that page [aetherltd.com] is an excellent example of why you shouldn't use a display font for normal text.

With a system that does anti-aliasing of text (Windows 7, Vista(?), newer MacOS, newer Linux, etc.) it's not too bad. If your system doesn't, it looks awful. It looks terrible in Windows XP and earlier, even if you have a current browser. It's definitely not something ready for wide scale deployment given the current state of client platforms. I'm trying it for the amusement of the steampunk community.

Those are actual 19th century fonts, scanned in from a book of type styles circa 1900 and vectorized.

Re:Font issues. (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878490)

Looks terrible on windows 7 64bit, in chrome, FF and opera here.
I'm not being a troll, I'm just telling you how it is :)

Re:Minor improvements (2, Informative)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876526)

The "input type" [w3.org] mechanism for forms is lame. There are a number of standard types like "tel", but it's just text with no line breaks. They should have provided for either regular expressions or syntax like the COBOL Picture clause ("CREDIT_CARD_NUMBER PIC 9999-9999-9999-9999").

If you had RTFA you would have seen that one of the new validation types IS regex in the HTML 5 draft.

<input type="text" pattern="REGEX HERE">

Thanks, no (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32875788)

I've learned long ago that developing against standards that are not yet official is the road to pain. This is demonstrated even in the summary itself:

Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way.

So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"?

Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."

Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official? Again - thanks, no. I'll wait until it's ratified as a standard, and the first revision of major browsers offers compliance.

Re:Thanks, no (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876028)

Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way.

So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"?

This is something of a straw man. No one recommends you implement the features that aren't readily available in all major browsers. It just goes through a list of features that seem likely to soon be available in all browsers. You're the only one saying you should implement those particular items.

Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."

Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official?

Yes, since everyone in their right mind can see IE does not now and is unlikely to soon implement standards compliance. You implement work arounds for IE now in all your pages don't you, just like all the rest of the world that does Web development? Why would you think that is going to change? So here's a nice list of the new standard you can actually use now, and the work around code to make IE behave like a real browser. That's exactly what every developer needs to implement any feature on the Web, regardless of how much of a "standard" it is.

By all means feel free to ignore HTML5 and not implement any of it. It just means your site will be crappier than sites being reworked with support for some of the nice new standards. The game is changing, but there's no reason you have to get on board. By all means, sit on the sidelines until you feel comfortable.

Re:Thanks, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32877564)

Actually, ignore this idiot and all the html5 crap that is floating around; it's not worth the hassle, as you point out.

Re:Thanks, no (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876194)

HTML 5 is being developed incrementally. Some parts of the standard are final, some are considered early drafts (you can see which by checking the spec - it's annotated with this information). For something to be final, it must have feedback from two independent implementations.

Things like HTML 5 Shiv are part of the design of HTML 5. It is intentionally designed in such a way that it can be implemented in legacy browsers using a combination of plugins and JavaScript. This is not a workaround, it's a migration path. You can start using the features before their support is ubiquitous, using fallback code to support them on older browsers. This helps avoid the chicken and egg problem that new specs often suffer from - content creators don't use them until the browsers support them, and the browsers don't support them until there's content that needs them.

Re:Thanks, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32876574)

So, for now, Flash it is. LOL

Re:Thanks, no (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877600)

I've learned long ago that developing against standards that are not yet official is the road to pain. This is demonstrated even in the summary itself. So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"? Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official? Again - thanks, no. I'll wait until it's ratified as a standard, and the first revision of major browsers offers compliance.

Well then you can enjoy the wait until 2022 [whatwg.org], because that's when it will reach W3C Recommendation, which is the current status of HTML4.

Of course, by that time the rest of us will all be enjoying HTML9.

The real standard is "what do 80% of browsers support?" Browser support for HTML5 [deepbluesky.com] will be added piecemeal, just like they did with HTML4.

Multi-column! Multi-column!! (2, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876054)

Multi-column (even with basic support), and full support of font-face, is going to go finally enable real layout.

Can you imagine inDesign, or Quark (or Pagemaker, etc..) without multi-column support?

Are there ANY newspapers that don't support multi-column layout?

Meanwhile, I'd like to see varying width/varying shape columns, with reflows, and proper column break hints.

The current support in Firefox/Safari/Chrome is much appreciated, though. (IE doesn't have it at all!)

Example multi-column layout with font-faces: http://www.futureclaw.com/articles/visionary-futurist-syd-mead.html [futureclaw.com]

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32876268)

I don't understand the point of having multi-column as part of HTML. Multi-column layouts exist because of a number of properties of print layout that do not apply to the web. Web pages are not fixed size. They are not restricted in any direction, but they are commonly expected to not have a limited vertical dimension. Assumptions of fixed sizes have a tendency to get broken on web pages. And multiple pieces of complete content rarely appear on a single page. Multi-column is a print concept, but the web is not print.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (4, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876338)

It's because page-width is variable that multi-columns are needed. There is a visual usability limit to column sizes, about 5-10 words or so.

It is a mistake to think that print properties do not apply to web. The same visual rules apply to web, or anywhere.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (2, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877110)

Have you actually tried reading multi-column pages on the web? It is a pain in the ass. Instead of just scrolling down as you read, you scroll down to the bottom of the first column, then scroll back up to the top, then scroll down again to read the next column, etc. It is pointless, and offers zero advantages to the reader. The only people clamoring for it seem to be layout artists raised on print layout; I can't think of a single case as a reader where I would prefer multi-column over single-column layout for an article. Yes, there may be a usability limit to column width - but on the web there is no limit to the vertical dimension, so this really doesn't matter.

The one place multiple columns in an electronic medium makes sense is where you can fit everything on a single page by doing so, and in order to be readable that means knowing the size of the screen your readers will be using - if you can't guarantee that, just use a single column. Pretty much everyone is used to scrolling down as they read, it is quite easy and seamless.

Multi-column has nothing to do with page width - yes, there will be significant space "wasted" in a single-column layout, but so what? It is much better than the alternative of having to scroll up and down as you read.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877466)

Multi-column can actually prevent scrolling entirely, by using the horizontal space instead of forcing you to scroll vertically.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878426)

Well ain't that a big fuck you to the user. No web design should ever disable features the user finds useful.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#32879038)

Indeed.

Users are the least capable of determining the quality of their own experience.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877192)

if you want multi column that bad its just an extra 42 chars for two columns and additional 9 per column.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878492)

It's because page-width is variable that multi-columns are needed. There is a visual usability limit to column sizes, about 5-10 words or so.

That does not follow. Yes, a 60 character column is optimal, but that doesn't mean you have to shove a bunch of columns right next to each other. One article should be one long column. Scrolling is easy, and it doesn't force us to keep moving our eyes from top to bottom like multi-column does. A single column would leave lots of whitespace, but so what? I'm not looking at the whitespace, I'm looking at the column. If anything, having more than one column is distracting.

Re:Multi-column! Multi-column!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32876846)

Ugh... wall of text with two columns? That means the user has to scroll down a dozen screens, then back up, then down a second time. It works when you're reading a magazine or your monitor is tall enough to have all the text on one screen, but neither is the case for most web sites.

How To Use HTML5 Today (The Idiots Guide) (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#32876740)

It is quite simple and always error free! Ideal for blogs and flash pages where content is not paramount.

<!doctype html>
<html />

Re:How To Use HTML5 Today (The Idiots Guide) (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877616)

It is quite simple and always error free! Ideal for blogs and flash pages where content is not paramount.

Yeah, for most blogs I've seen, "content is not paramount" is an understatement...

Video gallery (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#32877076)

Are there any good photo / video web albums that use HTML5 to good effect yet?

I'm kinda hooked on http://marginalhacks.com/Hacks/album/ [marginalhacks.com] , which has the simplest, most straightforward interface of all the other things I've tried. And it makes a good attempt at handling video. I have a simple shell script that imports pics from my Canon camera, converts the mjpegs to .mp4, and tosses it into my ~/public_html/pictures directory indexed by Album.

http://gallery.menalto.com/ [menalto.com] is also one of my favorites, but it's a bit too labor intensive for a photo archive... I do try to load some of the nicest shots in it, though, for all the comments and other features..

still only makes sense for backends 90% of time (1)

systematical (1394991) | more than 3 years ago | (#32878650)

HTML 5 really only makes sense for backends where I/T can dictate browser policies. For instance at my last two jobs I/T has dictated the use of the latest version of FireFox, its been pretty sweet. Unfortunately, most web designers and developers still need to do things the IE 6 way on frontends.
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...