HTML5

Why does it exist? What void is trying to be filled with it? I heard it is supposed to be an opensource replacement for flash, but I did some research and found that it is not capable of doing anything that flash can except play video.

[Web moderator]

More here:
http://www.w3schools.com/html5/default.asp
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/

Quite a few changes actually. Besides the video, you can now "draw" shapes on a virtual canvas - which could be quite handy if you ask me. It also allows for "storage" on the visitor's client browser for storing more than simple cookie data.

Unfortunately, until more people update their IE, in particular, and other browsers there won't ever be full compatability.

Yes, seems good, but flash is already capable of doing much more. I just don't see the need of something other than flash. It seems to me like they are reinventing the wheel.

Quite a few changes actually. Besides the video, you can now "draw" shapes on a virtual canvas - which could be quite handy if you ask me.

Both the video and "drawing" sounds incredibly inefficient.  Why don't they develop a GNU alternative to Flash rather than this dumb HTML5 Collective rubbish!

Also, isn't that drawing SVG?  Oh wait.. I remember... "HTML 5" = "HTML 5, and a lot of stuff that very obviously isn't HTML".

It also allows for "storage" on the visitor's client browser for storing more than simple cookie data.

How is that a good thing?  Just go ahead and read it out loud... doesn't make any sense, does it?

HTML 5 is a mark-up language that is going to provide slower browser experiences, more internet ignorance, and act as a platform for other slow standards such as using SVG, CSS3 and dumb video **** to replace far faster browser tools, like Flash.  The idea of using as much scripting, XML and plain-text as possible just seems dumb as *censored* from all points of call and yet this is still regarded as an upgrade.  If people really have an issue with Flash then by all means, make a W3C blessed binary standard for rich media, don't try and replace it with more scripting which shouldn't be given as a utility due to its potential for lazy use and inefficiency!


This is a family friendly forum. Please mind your language.

It seems to me like they are reinventing the wheel.

Agreed.

[Web moderator]

Why don't they develop a GNU alternative to Flash rather than this dumb HTML5 Collective rubbish!

MS tried to create an alternative, although not free, it barely skimmed the top off Adobe's market share.

Also, isn't that drawing SVG?

Use Google if you're not sure.

HTML 5 is a mark-up language that is going to provide slower browser experiences, more internet ignorance, and act as a platform for other slow standards such as using SVG, CSS3 and dumb video **** to replace far faster browser tools, like Flash.  The idea of using as much scripting, XML and plain-text as possible just seems dumb as *censored* from all points of call and yet this is still regarded as an upgrade.  If people really have an issue with Flash then by all means, make a W3C blessed binary standard for rich media, don't try and replace it with more scripting which shouldn't be given as a utility due to its potential for lazy use and inefficiency!

You seem to have a problem with something or other, so I'd suggest you go bang your head off a wall or something. If we can't have a civilised debate over the good and bad points of HTML5 then go elsewhere.

It also allows for "storage" on the visitor's client browser for storing more than simple cookie data.

Sounds like it could be a security risk. Anyway, Veltas, I think you're right.

The idea of using as much scripting, XML and plain-text as possible just seems dumb as *censored* from all points of call and yet this is still regarded as an upgrade.

Exactly, a scripting language language can never have as much power and speed as flash because flash is compiled (to byte code I think). All this will do is add another layer and more complexity to something that doesn't need it in the first place.

[Web moderator]

Exactly, a scripting language language can never have as much power and speed as flash because flash is compiled (to byte code I think). All this will do is add another layer and more complexity to something that doesn't need it in the first place.

Well, IMO, the fact that an external plugin doesn't have to be loaded in the first place would speed things up.

Anyway, whichever is better - a WWW-wide standard should be used and left at that. I don't think there were many changes between HTML 4 and HTML 3 either, but it was a while since an upgrade - so they upgraded it. This update, I do feel, isn't as necessary as the last one. The web has come a long way since HTML 3, and with CSS3 on the footpath, HTML 5 doesn't bring much to the table.

You seem to have a problem with something or other, so I'd suggest you go bang your head off a wall or something. If we can't have a civilised debate over the good and bad points of HTML5 then go elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I'm acting like HTML 5 killed my mother... I'll tone down the drama.

MS tried to create an alternative, although not free, it barely skimmed the top off Adobe's market share.

Yeah, but Silverlight wasn't really ever seen as a GNU alternative, as it wasn't GNU and didn't really take off anyway.

[Web moderator]

You are

HTML5 is a step forward, and more or less a natural extension of what we have. So far we'd had to rely on hacks and workarounds to get things working; in IE3, MS worked around the dismal support for layout by having a Layout ActiveX control; netscape had something similar. Of course you had to code two different web pages pretty much. then they added CSS to the standards and suddenly the control and NS plugin were obsolete. The interesting thing is people were saying exactly what is being said now. "I don't know why they added CSS! It will be slower than the layout control!" etc. All of which turned out to be hot-air.

MS tried to create an alternative, although not free, it barely skimmed the top off Adobe's market share.

Sharepoint and SilverLight are actually rather commonly used in enterprises over flash now. WPF itself is actually pretty bloody good for UI designing; better than HTML&CSS for sure. It particularly shines with data binding and data templates. I imagine a lot of the problem is that it requires the rather expensive IIS server.

Exactly, a scripting language language can never have as much power and speed as flash because flash is compiled (to byte code I think). All this will do is add another layer and more complexity to something that doesn't need it in the first place.

Flash's ActionScript compiles to bytecode. But as far as performance is concerned it hardly makes a difference, since Javascript is compiled to machine code on-the-fly for the local machine with most browser's interpreters; much akin to java. Flash's use of a Binary Blob for data has been a source of too many problems to count. Most of the security issues we have to constantly keep updating Flash Player for are caused by malformed SWF files that break assumptions made in the plugin.

Thing is, Flash/Shockwave has only become so widely accepted because machines have gotten fast enough to run it. In it's earliest incarnations it required what would be considered a rather weighty machine to use adequately.

HTML 5 is a mark-up language that is going to provide slower browser experiences,

How will it be slower? Currently, with flash, the speed at which Shockwave files play depends entirely on the implementation in
 the plugin. With HTML5, the speed of canvas element animation will depend on the browser implementation. the fact is it's not moving anything. Rather than having the animation coded in a native-code library attached to the browser, it will be run in the browser itself. The fact that the elements and other properties of the animations is held in plain-text has no bearing on speed since it will be read once, placed into data structures by the browser, and run. The same thing has to happen with flash anyway, being effectively binary doesn't make a huge difference.

more internet ignorance

Um, how would this happen?

and act as a platform for other slow standards such as using SVG, CSS3 and dumb video **** to replace far faster browser tools, like Flash.

SVG and CSS3 are better than flash, simply by virtue of A: not requiring a security addled plugin, and B: not relying on a uninspectible, proprietary binary file for it's information. That binary file doesn't make Flash faster. Flash isn't faster, it's language is ActionScript and doesn't run any faster than javascript does in a browser thanks to jit.

The idea of using as much scripting, XML and plain-text as possible just seems dumb as *censored* from all points of call and yet this is still regarded as an upgrade.

Consider that almost every single exploit in either browsers or flash has to do with malformed binary data, I think it makes perfect sense to change formats from an ill-documented binary format whose loading is controlled by a third-party plugin that cannot be properly security audited to a format that can be.

If people really have an issue with Flash then by all means, make a W3C blessed binary standard for rich media, don't try and replace it with more scripting which shouldn't be given as a utility due to its potential for lazy use and inefficiency!

The fact that flash is Binary at all is the problem, and is typically the cause of almost all browser security issues across the board. This applies both to it's swf files, which use a proprietary format that cannot be verified as meeting any specification by an external observer, as well as the plugin, which is generally a native code plugin or extension for the browser that is the only thing that understands that format. Of course since the plugin runs in the browser and thus has full control over it, you have the problem where the plugin being exploited by malformed binary data can either take control of the browser or crash it entirely (which is why almost all browsers have sandboxed plugin processes- all because of flash).


Also, what does GNU have to do with HTML5 and the W3C, anyway?

Also, what does GNU have to do with HTML5 and the W3C, anyway?

Dunno, lol.

HTML5 is a step forward, and more or less a natural extension of what we have.

Certainly, not considering current plugins HTML 5 is a natural extension.

Sharepoint and SilverLight are actually rather commonly used in enterprises over flash now. WPF itself is actually pretty bloody good for UI designing; better than HTML&CSS for sure. It particularly shines with data binding and data templates. I imagine a lot of the problem is that it requires the rather expensive IIS server.

You learn something new every day... but as far as web design in general is concerned this is really a niche rather than a general swoop... but not small enough not to be considered.

But as far as performance is concerned it hardly makes a difference, since Javascript is compiled to machine code on-the-fly for the local machine with most browser's interpreters; much akin to java.

This is only a recent development (or in Google Chrome's case something since inception, half the reason Chrome caught developer's eyes so early on was its amazing out-of-this-world JavaScript performance), and still requires a faster machine than flash does.



Something else worth considering... most web developers know barely anything about coding web-pages, much less how to script using all the features plugged into HTML 5.  This means they're going to grab the first good HTML 5 development kit that hits the market and horrendous unreadable and ultra-inefficient code is going to become the standard on all but the best funded websites.  Even if well-formed HTML 5 is almost as fast as Flash, most people won't be able to provide this and HTML 5 will take a very long time to become adopted.  This is good news for web coders, bad news for small businesses and a pain for large companies that want to look groovy and use HTML 5.

[Web moderator]

most web developers know barely anything about coding web-pages, much less how to script using all the features plugged into HTML 5.

I don't know who you're referring to or how true it is, but any and all websites I do are created first in Photoshop, then Dreamweaver (for it's very-handy compatability checking) and finally to Notepad++ where I do the coding. Also, with most websites using some form of server-side technology, web developers have no choice but know how to code.

Even if well-formed HTML 5 is almost as fast as Flash, most people won't be able to provide this and HTML 5 will take a very long time to become adopted.

Very true.

I think the problem for HTML5 is javascript libraries like jQuery, Prototype, Mootools etc. They make designing interactive and animated websites very easy.

and a pain for large companies that want to look groovy and use HTML 5.

As I said above, there will be no need for large companies to upgrade to HTML 5 because of things like jQuery.

I think the problem for HTML5 is javascript libraries like jQuery, Prototype, Mootools etc. They make designing interactive and animated websites very easy.

Now I'm confused... I thought JavaScript was supposed to be used with HTML 5.

[Web moderator]

No, not necessarily. Just the storage thing, I think, uses Javascript.