HTML5, jQuery, etc
- Started
- Last post
- 43 Responses
- eating_tv0
I signed up at QBN for the uselss posts, what's this!?
- ukit0
It's <strong>too bad</strong> QBN doesn't let us format the responses to posts.
- stewdio0
Once I figure out a cleaner, faster way to do complex 3D animations in Ruby I'll write a sequel to this post:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RUBY-PROCESSING
Are you on a Mac? Ten minutes from now you will be running your first Ruby-Processing animation, mesmerized by a color shifting 3D cube spinning in space:
http://stewdio.org/blog/2010/03/…
- georgesIII0
cool game
http://www.benjoffe.com/code/gam…
- seansuth0
Great post @stwedio, thanks a bunch! Keep it up!
- stewdio0
What HTML5 and CSS3 features can you use *right now* ?
Here's a handy chart : http://html5readiness.com/
- ********0
I'd like to see less nut-hugging for stewdio (great post btw), and more contribution to the actual thread itself.
- ********0
Breaking news: HTML5 will be ready by the year 2022
When will the next version of HTML be ready? Apparently, we have 4859 days to go before HTML5 reaches the “Proposed Recommendation” status. That’s 13 years, according to Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification.
It’s been 10 years since HTML4 came out. And it will take a total of 19 years for HTML5 to come to fruition. Here’s staggering journey HTML5 has gone and will go through:
* First W3C Working Draft in October 2007.
* Last Call Working Draft in October 2009.
* Call for contributions for the test suite in 2011.
* Candidate Recommendation in 2012.
* First draft of test suite in 2012.
* Second draft of test suite in 2015.
* Final version of test suite in 2019.
* Reissued Last Call Working Draft in 2020.
* Proposed Recommendation in 2022.So what do we do about this excruciating piece of information? Jeff Croft says we should just go back to work. And ignore HTML5 until we absolute don’t have to.
If and when HTML 5 becomes something that can help me serve my clients and the users of their websites, then I will absolutely learn all there is to know about it and incorporate it into my arsenal. Until then, I don’t see the point.
It’s only a bit disappointing since the knowledge of the beautiful things one can achieve with HTML5 has been coming and going for the past few years now. But the thing is, as Kroc Camen said, “HTML5 is doable in the here and now”—his site is excellent proof of that. Except, of course, it will take extra work for it to work properly as not even the standards-compliant browsers support it. Which brings us back to Jeff Croft’s point.
- http://www.wisdump.c…********
- This was supposed to be a help thread. Not an HTML5 hate thread.stewdio
- I thought he was being seriousAncillary
- i am being serious.********
- seriously idiotic. see detritus below.kpl
- http://www.wisdump.c…
- hans_glib0
so where does xhtml fit in to all this? Is it to be superseded by html5? or is html5 a development?
- detritus0
HTML5 is a rationalised forking from the xhtml days.
The reason being - the implentation of an updated standard along the chronology hinted at in 'idiots' timeline.
HTML5 is more like a return to days of old where feature-creep hindered the acceptance of a unified standard until *after* the event. HTMLs 3 and 4 were only really decided after people had been doing them for years anyway. This does not mean an end to development or a delay in uptake. It just means this will be turbulent and unsettled for a while.
HTML5 does not seek to rebuild the web in its semantically-correct image, like the XHTML debacle of the early millennium.
So, whilst the timeline in 'idiots' post is, in an academic and arcane sense, correct, to you me and everyone here, it amounts to little more than FUD.
- georgesIII0
don't know if it has been posted before,
Hulu not ready for html5
“Our player doesn’t just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren’t necessarily visible to the end user.”
- acescence0
"Have you ever wanted to do if-statements in your CSS for the availability of cool features like border-radius? Well, with Modernizr you can accomplish just that!"
- ukit0
Actually...the 2022 date is almost completely meaningless. I have heard that comment made more than a few times and Adobe even posted something similar on their blog, which is annoying because it adds to the confusion.
The official "ready" date in terms of the HTML5 spec is the Candidate Recommendation in 2012. At that point the spec is complete and ready to use.
Also even in terms of the 2012 date is that the parts of the spec they need to finish up are NOT the graphics/ UI aspects of it. They are the more developer-oriented stuff like web workers, microdata, and others. So by 2012 all of that will be done.
What happens from 2012 to 2022 is not writing new parts of the spec but the "test suite." Apparently they go through and test the spec in browsers in every possible implementation. Along with collecting feedback from companies and people developing HTML. You could compare it the process Apple or Microsoft go through in terms of maintaining an OS after its been released, making little tweaks here and there, and fixing bugs.
How they arrived at a timeline of 10 years for this, I'm not totally sure:) But it's more a behind the scenes part of the process that will likely be completely irrelevant to your average web developer. If they find something that totally doesn't work, they'll fix it, but they are not inventing new stuff from scratch or radically altering the spec.
You can read more on this in these interviews with Ian Hickson who is the "author" of the HTML5 spec. He talks about the testing process and how it is much different from HTML4.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.co…
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.co…So what is holding HTML5 back in actually not, for the most part, the spec. It's the browsers implementing the spec and in particular IE. Microsoft could end of holding back the process a couple years or more in terms of really getting everyone on board. And possibly longer. Which is why I've started wondering lately if at least some companies will begin to move past the "we have to support everyone" mentality and start developing apps and websites that only work on modern browsers.
- ukit0
Another good resource is the WHATWG wiki:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#…
"When will HTML5 Be Finished?"
"It is estimated by the editor that HTML5 will reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012. That doesn't mean you can't start using it yet, though. Different parts of the specification are at different maturity levels. Some sections are already relatively stable and there are implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>)."
- SPECTACULAR0
HAY!! so does flash support HTML5?
- SteveJobs0
"Which is why I've started wondering lately if at least some companies will begin to move past the "we have to support everyone" mentality and start developing apps and websites that only work on modern browsers."
and from a big companies perspective, i don't see a value in adopting html5 "just because" - especially when the only things pushing it right now are apple's mobile devices. and all this at the risk of losing customers. you've seen a lot of companies create iphone-sized versions of their site which is generally a re-skin with limited features, but that was kind of a simple step backwards whereas html5 is a step forwards.
who knows though, if enough companies can convince their users to upgrade their browser to use their sites, then it could happen. but i think users are too fickle. look how many have held on to ie6 for all these years.
- ukit0
Well, what kind of site are we talking about?
If it's more of a non-interactive, informational site I don't know how much they would really gain from HTML5. They almost certainly wouldn't use the rich media stuff whether it was Flash or HTML. Eventually I guess they would adopt the semantic layout tags like <header>, <nav>, <section> etc
On the other hand, if it's a web based app like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or even a larger social media site (Flickr, YouTube) those are the kind of sites that could benefit from a lot of HTML5 features - little things like drag and drop (which I think Gmail added recently), but also local storage, editable content, etc. And there I could easily imagine them pushing out features to some users that are browser specific.
And then a final category might be independent "start up" web apps like this: http://mugtug.com/darkroom/ or https://bespin.mozillalabs.com/ that require HTML5 to work at all. So that might be where you see the split in terms of modern web versus IE web. Those two are pretty small scale but it's not crazy to think that you could build a viable business with an approach like that if you were doing something original.
- Samush0
I can see this being helpful to many people.
However, you print kids stick to your stock and gsm, let us web kids take care of the pixels and tags.