Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:01 UTC, submitted by irbis
Internet & Networking "The web is constantly evolving. New and innovative websites are being created every day, pushing the boundaries of HTML in every direction. HTML 4 has been around for nearly a decade now, and publishers seeking new techniques to provide enhanced functionality are being held back by the constraints of the language and browsers. To give authors more flexibility and interoperability, and enable more interactive and exciting websites and applications, HTML 5 introduces and enhances a wide range of features including form controls, APIs, multimedia, structure, and semantics."
Order by: Score:
Great
by sultanqasim on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:18 UTC
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

HTML 4 has had a long run but it's aging and many proprietary (and separate open) non-standard standards are taking over the web. HTML 5 seems to be trying to tame that with standard syntax and is adding some very useful layout tags which are a blessing to those who make sites with a plain text editor. Overall, great job and I'm expecting more progress over the next couple years.

Reply Score: 3

Browser Support?
by DrillSgt on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:21 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

I hope that the browser vendors are working on new versions to support HTML 5. Some of them can not even get CSS right. new features are great, but are for nothing if the browser does not support it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Browser Support?
by poundsmack on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "Browser Support?"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

"any key players are participating in the W3C effort including representatives from the four major browser vendors: Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Microsoft..."

they are indeed. this looks like it will be the overhall that is indeed badly needed. i look farward to it with open arms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Browser Support?
by DrillSgt on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Browser Support?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

""any key players are participating in the W3C effort including representatives from the four major browser vendors: Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Microsoft...""

I did see that. These same "key players" also worked on the other versions of HTML, as well as the CSS standard. I am hoping they follow through and make their browsers compliant. Well, 3 of those 4 are...and IE7 is better than IE6. ;)

Edit: corrected typo and some of the grammar.

Edited 2007-12-04 21:43

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Browser Support?
by Clinton on Wed 5th Dec 2007 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Browser Support?"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I can't fathom how Microsoft can put so much time and effort into IE 7 and still get so many things wrong. It's much better than IE 6, which as a web developer, I finally just quit supporting because the level of suck was just too great, but still...

I look forward with great excitement to things like HTML5 and CSS3, but somehow I think the majority (read IE users) of the web won't benefit from them for a long, long, long, long time.

Reply Score: 4

IE7
by daddio on Wed 5th Dec 2007 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Browser Support?"
daddio Member since:
2007-07-14

As a software developer myself, I can tell you that if you haven't hacked on something for a while, even a few months, it takes quite a bit of time just to get back up to speed on what the code does and how it all fits together. When I imagine for the amount of time IE6 sat essentially gathering dust and the complexity of such a project, I can well imagine many of the programmers working on it are only vaguely aware of how it works even a year later.

Reply Score: 1

RE: IE7
by Clinton on Thu 6th Dec 2007 01:31 UTC in reply to "IE7"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

But it isn't like Microsoft developers had to pull IE's compliance with internet standards out of their ear, or even our of old code. The standards are well documented. All they had to do was implement them.

I used to work at Microsoft and I don't think their decisions have much to do with developer ability.

Reply Score: 2

Great news...
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:47 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Flash's over-use (come on, sites actually require this crap?) and bugginess (especially in Linux... don't know how many times it ate all my memory trying to watch a video on IGN, or was prevented from scrolling with my mouse wheel) has really been getting on my nerves for a while now. Audio/video support directly within the browser through html using cross-platform codecs sounds like a blessing at this point. Hopefully eventually this leads to most sites ditching Flash for video in favor of the more "native" method, leading to less (if not none) Flash dependence, fewer bugs, better use of resources, and more universally-viewable sites across different OSes/devices. Browsing Web sites would be a much more pleasant experience. My only question... why didn't this happen a long time ago?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Great news...
by bm3719 on Tue 4th Dec 2007 22:05 UTC in reply to "Great news..."
bm3719 Member since:
2006-05-30

Another sad thing is all the bandwidth being wasted by useless flash banners, ads, "splash" pages, page headers, and Myspace widgets.

Sure, every now and then, it's ok for something like Google Video. But this is not the norm by far. Apparently companies like throwing away money on web designer click-monkeys. There's also hidden costs too, of course. If your entire site content is embedded in flash, you'll have to pay consultant fees to fix a misspelled word or update the employee list everytime someone quits. Thank g-d for flashblock, is all I have to say.

Actually, I'd rather noone used any colors at all on their sites so I could just set the default background and font color to my liking. Only a patheticly small amount of the web is actual content. The rest is useless garbage and fluff. Layout != content. Even this site is full of crap.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Great news...
by testman on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

"Another sad thing is all the bandwidth being wasted by useless flash banners, ads, "splash" pages, page headers, and Myspace widgets."

It's called "advertising". It pays for all the free stuff you like to complain about!

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Great news...
by anevilyak on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

It's called "advertising". It pays for all the free stuff you like to complain about!


There are much less obtrusive and obnoxious ways of advertising than flash ads that follow you along the page until you click close, banners with video, etc. and so forth. See AdSense for a prime example.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Great news...
by edmnc on Wed 5th Dec 2007 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news..."
edmnc Member since:
2006-02-21

"Actually, I'd rather noone used any colors at all on their sites so I could just set the default background and font color to my liking."

Install http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/ and click Disable > Disable Page Colors

I'm sure you'll find pretty fast that its a silly idea.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Great news...
by bm3719 on Wed 5th Dec 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
bm3719 Member since:
2006-05-30

Yes, I do use the webdev toolbar in FF. You're right, it would be a silly thing to do without doing away with all other forms of layout as well.

My ideal static HTML page has normal text content, not broken into a million pages. Images can be inline, if used with moderation and if they are on-topic. Any multimedia or non-standard file types should be linked to, with a note of the file type of the target (that way the user can decide what he wants to do with it). An occasional table is okay, if it is actuallly needed to display content, like in a chart of data.

In a web like this, the user can then make his own appearance decisions, like those I mentioned.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Great news...
by KenJackson on Wed 5th Dec 2007 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Another sad thing is all the bandwidth being wasted by useless flash banners, ads, "splash" pages, page headers, and Myspace widgets.

Right! I know it's advertising and freedom, etc., and I would never support any mandatory restrictions from any source. But really really hate noisy web pages. And I'm really really grateful to the guys that came up with Adblock.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Great news...
by hobgoblin on Tue 4th Dec 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "Great news..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

quick guess on that last question: IE6...

yes, its nice to see that those media tags go in, but i worry about the should (not must) when it comes to ogg format.

i fear that we will still see pages (mostly the big media corp backed ones) that use stuff like wmv or something else that they can drm overload, with no ogg or other open format anywhere in sight.

still, i really hope that google goes html5+ogg on their googlevideo and youtube...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Great news...
by testman on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Why use OGG when a Flash-based format works on EVERY machine, and WMV works on the majority? Seems pointless to adopt an obsure format when there are better ones out there with mass-adoption already.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Great news...
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Because OGG is open-source, not controlled by a company, and Flash is NOT available on EVERY machine, and WMV also doesn't work everywhere Flash does not. If you think Flash works on every machine, you've led a limited existence in the computer world. When it comes to Flash, you're at the mercy of Adobe, directly or indirectly.

Using OGG (which is truly open) in place of Flash (which is not, and is controlled by a single company) for the web/HTML xxx version is very much a wiser thing for true platform independence without licensing issues.

Reply Score: 16

RE[4]: Great news...
by testman on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Yeah, I admit I do lead a limited computing experience. IT just isn't a lifestyle choice for me.

I fail to see why it matters if Flash is owned by a company. What could Adobe do that would be so heinous as to make this an issue? At the very worst, if it severely inconveniences people, there's always Silverlight and yes, even Ogg if they can convince (normal) people that it is a better option than Microsoft's (who a are industry leaders, as opposed to a community of enthusiasts).

The way I see it, the only reason to ditch proprietry formats which are free to download and use, would be a matter of ideology, not practicality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Great news...
by marafaka on Wed 5th Dec 2007 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

It matters because lots of people are on non-mainstream platforms and they're left to the mercy of proprietary technology owners if and when they'll get it. And they usually don't get it so they tend to ignore pranksters you call industry leaders.

I agree that not having a worldview is a good idea. At least it's perfect for us, squeezing the juice out of your pocket.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great news...
by testman on Wed 5th Dec 2007 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

My portfolio is doing quite well, thank you very much! I'm a conservative, long-term investor, not willing to take a punt on short-lived fads! :-)

Unfortunately, I'm not immersed enough in the more obscure fringe of IT to know anyone who uses a non-mainstream OS seriously, so I can't verify your claim that they "ignore" the industry. If that is the case, I can only think that such ignorance will probably ensure the "pranksters" will maintain their lead for some time to come.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Great news...
by chmeee on Thu 6th Dec 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great news..."
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

I use FreeBSD, which isn't entirely non-mainstream, but I cannot run the Flash plugin without Linux emulation, which I ripped out of my kernel configuration to increase performance of the system as a whole (Linux compatibility module depends on code which does slow down the system quite a bit). This means I can't watch google video, youtube, or any of those stupid flash ads that all those ad agencies think we _love_ to watch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Great news...
by milles21 on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news..."
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Be serious flash is just as much available as OGG the same rules apply you will have to install the codecs for ogg just like you will have to install flash. Being open-source is not always a good enough reason.

People love to scream because it is open source, in the grand scheme of things that means nothing if the processes are the same. By that I mean I still need to install some codec. Does windows support ogg out the box, NO, does OSX uuuhhhh No. does linux yes fine if the whole world was using linux.

However for the most part the scenario is the same some form of instllation. Again being opensource does not make it the correct choice.

Just because you can spot it's not controlled by one company does not mean that it is in many cases not the best solution.


Also as as side note you only have to look at the ODF foundation " It's open source" to see that it is not always best just to choose something because it is open-source. They eventually dropped off support for their own initiative. I am not saying that I am against ODF bacuse I supported it however I am saying that you can't always get caught up in the open source formats sometimes you have to choose a format where some one has a vested interest. other than openness.

Edited 2007-12-05 00:30

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Great news...
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Be serious flash is just as much available as OGG

It's not.

the same rules apply you will have to install the codecs for ogg just like you will have to install flash.

All well and good until you are on a platform for which no flash plugin exists.

That's a rare platform on the average desktop, but there are plenty of them among those discussed here on OSNews. Companies worried about the bottom line aren't going to expend the effort to port their plugin to Haiku, say, and this could hinder Haiku's adoption, making Adobe less likely to port etc etc.

This may not be a problem for Joe Average but overreliance by webdesigners on proprietary frameworks hinders freedom of choice and the uptake of new operating systems. This is a shame when new operating systems bring something to the table, as a lot of people feel Haiku will.

Edited 2007-12-05 00:36

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Great news...
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

All well and good until you are on a platform for which no flash plugin exists.

That's a rare platform on the average desktop, but there are plenty of them among those discussed here on OSNews. Companies worried about the bottom line aren't going to expend the effort to port their plugin to Haiku, say..

"""

No need to look that far. Does flash exist for 64 bit anything?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great news...
by xfranky on Wed 5th Dec 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
xfranky Member since:
2006-09-19

IANAL but I believe Flash has to be installed aside because of licensing issues, while ogg could be included in a browser code without any need for an ogg plugin, like Opera already does in the last builds.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Great news...
by hobgoblin on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

because both flash and wmv are proprietary formats.

ogg on the other hand is free, in both senses of the word. you can get codecs for it on nearly any platform out there.

another option for video would be divx/xvid.

and for the record, flash is just a container with a interface. the format used inside is h.263, vp6 in flash 8 and beyond, and h.264 coming by the looks of it.

and every machine? hardly...

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Great news...
by testman on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

As I said to the guy that got in before you, so what if they aren't open? They're free, and that's enough.

I'm curious to know what important platforms are out there that do not have Flash support. Windows? Check. Mac OS? Check. Hell, even Linux has a plugin for it.

Thanks for reminding me about the Flash bit though. I admit it is not my forte... that's Marketing's job. So if it supports any codec anyway, perhaps Flash is the way to go.... everyone wins! :o)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great news...
by hobgoblin on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

someone put a bullet in my head...

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Great news...
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 5th Dec 2007 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news..."
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Fortunately for you, the bullet I loaded into my chamber is a Flash bullet, but... my gun's OS doesn't have a Flash plug-in!

(or wait, perhaps that's not fortunate for you: you're still alive to suffer the ignorance of people saying "It's free, that's all that matters!" and "Open source is all about ideology and not practicality!" when in this case, it is more practical, and more free, and why HTML is such a raging success: because it IS open and it IS free!).

In reference to a couple of posts, if you read all my posts, and think about things, you'll note I'm not an OSS fanatic, and not a pure commercial software fanatic, but more of a moderate that prefers some sort of balance somewhere between the two extremes. Neither one (free of cost or otherwise) seems to be the best solution to all problems in practicality for widespread success of any given thing: there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all-and-works-best solution for everything in every situation. In the case of interoperability with HTML/web stuff, the specification and the code implementing it needs to be truly open, or the web devolves into a bunch of feudal TLD's that are platform-racist, if you will. I know of no such historical context where racism of any form benefited a society at large, and the web is a modern form of social construct connected by a bunch of content in the most international of languages: HTML.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Great news...
by testman on Wed 5th Dec 2007 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great news..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

You're.... you're actually comparing it to racism? My God. Could someone please shoot ME next?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Great news...
by Doc Pain on Wed 5th Dec 2007 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great news..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"[...] the web is a modern form of social construct connected by a bunch of content in the most international of languages: HTML."

Attention, this is the pedantic department speaking:

HTML is not a language, it's a container for content that can occur in a soecific language, but if you separate HTML from content, the result is free of any content. From it's own language elements, HTML is english text. Of course, the english language can be seen as the most important international connecting language.

Signed
Mr. Pedanticus Stroodlehoober

:-)

To get back on topic again: If HTML is used to transport content in many languages, it cannot be specific to the kind of hardware and software that will extract the information and present it in the way the HTML container describes it. In the same way as it is language independant, it should be used to be recipient independant. In many cases, "optimized for" along with the name of a proprietary browser and pixel oriented screen parameters does not support this goal, instead, it makes the content hardly accessible or finally inaccessible. Such behaviour should be avoided for web contents in every case, but sadly, if you would validate the whole web for HTML standard conformity, I would doubt that more than 5% would be compliant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Great news...
by Joe User on Wed 5th Dec 2007 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"Why use OGG when a Flash-based format works on EVERY machine"

You need to do more research. AFAICT, Flash only works on Windows, Linux, Mac and Solaris. Flash support is poor on all BSD flavors, you can only use Flash 7 with the Linux Compatibility layer, and these days, most people export their Flash animations using Flash 9 format, so basically beside YouTube and some old Flash animations, you can say goodbye to Flash on *BSD. Thousands of people use BSD (http://www.bsdstats.org). Flash doesn't work on these systems either: Syllable, SkyOS, Amiga, Menuet, Haiku, RiscOS, you name it. So when you add all these relatively small communities, this accounts for a lot of people at the mercy of Adobe, a millionaire company that doesn't care about communities that aren't interesting from a financial standpoint. Adobe won't support these systems anytime soon, believe me, they're more interested in their crap like Flex or AIR that add even more bloat and proprietary lockin to the web.

This is why it is important to know that if your site is Flash-only, a whole bunch of people who have gone the open-source route will be unable to watch the content. If your site uses a Flash-based navigation bar, a SkyOS user won't pass the front page.

At this point, the solution is the open OGG format, like it or not, it works on all the aforementioned systems.

http://www.theora.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Great news...
by siride on Wed 5th Dec 2007 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news..."
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

OMG thousands of people!!! Let's completely ditch flash for those thousands of people who WILLINGLY CHOSE to use an OS that doesn't support most software or formats. How about I buy an old PDP-11 and then complain about how nobody supports it and companies are evil.

It is just sad that there are people out there who think that this is a real argument.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Great news...
by gary.c on Wed 5th Dec 2007 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
gary.c Member since:
2007-07-30

People who use an alternative OS do so with their eyes open, for particular reasons, and don't expect it to necessarily have every corporate cost/benefit-driven product. But I think it has generally been considered a good thing for the Web to be as neutral and nonprorietary as possible, to reach and be used by as many people as possible. Proprietary formats have their place if there isn't an open one to do the job, but when there is, it's good basic policy to support it. Most people are probably comfortable ceding some aspect of control of their media to a single company, as an expedient anyway, but this probably shouldn't be a critical ingredient of information flow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Great news...
by Joe User on Wed 5th Dec 2007 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"OMG thousands of people!!!"

Much more than that. Just on the BSD forum there are at least 90,000 people signed up, see the user cound in the URL:

http://www.freebsdforums.com/forums/member.php?u=92000

There are many other BSD users that never signed up on this forum, there are others who signed up on other BSD forums, there are not just BSD users, there are other alternative systems. How many have left these systems because of lack of support from some critical commercial software such as Adobe Flash Player?

"Let's completely ditch flash for those thousands of people who WILLINGLY CHOSE to use an OS that doesn't support most software or formats"

These users willingly choose security, stability and speed, they don't willingly choose to lose Flash support. Again, I'm not asking you to lose functionality, I'm asking you to use an equivalent technology, for instance:
- Instead of coding your navigation bar in Flash, use pure HTML, CSS and images, you can get the same effect, especially you can get the same bells and whistles if you use CSS image swapping and animated GIFs
- Instead of using Flash for your image slideshow, use Javascript, it works on all systems.
- Instead of animated objects using Flash, use Javascript
- You can use Javascript to code simple online games also.
- Instead of using Flash for videos, use OGV, you could even offer Flash as default and a downloadable .ogv file as an option for all these users.

"How about I buy an old PDP-11 and then complain about how nobody supports it and companies are evil".

This is the inherent problem of closed-source software, it's not available on all platforms. If Flash were a community-driven application downloadable on sourceforge, it would work on you PDP-Something computer. Although there are "less evil" companies. Check out companies like Opera Software and see all the platform they support: http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?custom=yes
So, no, you wouldn't have to worry about compatibility if most webdevelopers used open-source software and standards in their web sites. They wouldn't lose any functionality either. And not leaving people aside is one big argument. If 10% of your users leave your web site because they get a blank rectangle instead of the navigation bar and an error message, it's roughly like having a one-month server downtime over a one-year period of time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Great news...
by Anonymous Coward on Wed 5th Dec 2007 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news..."
Anonymous Coward Member since:
2005-07-06

Just to get in on the thread...

Maybe part of the flash solution for those who don't have the flash plugin would be to integrate gnash (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) into the code base, and disable it if the official flash plugin is installed.

I know it's not perfect, but it would offer developers who use flash on their websites a way to make them more compatible with more platforms. (if you don't use the features gnash doesn't support, export to a gnash compatible format)

Or better yet, create a cross-browser/cross-platform plugin for "Open Media" incorporating OGG, GNASH, and other OSS media types.

OTOH, I agree with the points of not using Flash where it is not necessary. (I have seen it used for navigation, simple pictures, and plenty of other things where simple HTML/CSS/Images would work... and work better)

Edited 2007-12-05 11:13

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Great news...
by Super King on Wed 5th Dec 2007 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news..."
Super King Member since:
2007-07-06

The problem is that it's NOT 10% of users who don't have flash. It's more like less than half a percent (BSD users). Is it worth it for a company to switch from the standard for half a percent?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Great news...
by Joe User on Wed 5th Dec 2007 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great news..."
RE[4]: Great news...
by Coxy on Wed 5th Dec 2007 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news..."
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Most of these users unable view it becuase of OSS route are the kind of people to block flash and everything else except plain text so that, acording to one comment in this thread, they can style everything themselves.

At this point, the solution is for SkyOS users and everyone else to realise that Adobe and every other big software company are not going to develop something for a thousand or so users of minority OSs. Like it or not, there are reasons why the word minority exists.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Great news...
by Joe User on Wed 5th Dec 2007 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news..."
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"Most of these users unable view it becuase of OSS route are the kind of people to block flash and everything else except plain text so that, acording to one comment in this thread, they can style everything themselves".

Some of them, not most of them.

"At this point, the solution is for SkyOS users and everyone else to realise that Adobe and every other big software company are not going to develop something for a thousand or so users of minority OSs. Like it or not, there are reasons why the word minority exists".

Then what do you do? Stop developing these minority systems and use Windows or Mac OSX? Just because Adobe refuses to support the minority systems? I'm sorry, but if you support Linux and not FreeBSD, there's lack of will power from Adobe. See all the systems Opera supports. And Opera in a company, and it's closed-source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great news... (Opera)
by Rugxulo on Fri 7th Dec 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news..."
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09


See all the systems Opera supports. And Opera in a company, and it's closed-source.


To be fair, I don't count a really really old version of Opera for BeOS (or QNX or OS/2) as "support". Not sure such an old browser is too horribly useful these days (but yes, I like and use Opera).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Great news...
by RawMustard on Wed 5th Dec 2007 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

What a load of cods wallop!
Flash does not work for me in 64bit Linux, neither does WMV work properly without me breaking laws and even then it doesn't work too good!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Great news...
by KenJackson on Wed 5th Dec 2007 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Why use OGG when a Flash-based format works on EVERY machine, and WMV works on the majority?

EVERY machine? I used NetBSD on one of my desktops for a couple years and I enjoyed it. But it was a source of irritation that I could never view Flash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Great news...
by sigzero on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news..."
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

Ogg? What the hell is that? Sorry, it just isn't going to happen.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Great news...
by hobgoblin on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[4]: Great news...
by sigzero on Thu 6th Dec 2007 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news..."
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

I know "what" it is. I meant, Ogg isn't going to replace anything any time soon.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Great news...
by unavowed on Wed 5th Dec 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news..."
unavowed Member since:
2006-03-23

You don't need html5 to view ogg media. It's doable today, if your browser has an appropriate plugin, or even using just java, as demonstrated at http://www.flumotion.com/en/textos.php?id=22

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Great news...
by hobgoblin on Wed 5th Dec 2007 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

true, but in todays media rich web, having to rely on plugins at all is, in one word, "old".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Great news...
by Drawnstories_studios on Wed 5th Dec 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "Great news..."
Drawnstories_studios Member since:
2005-12-12

the reason people use flash is because it protects content from being stolen. And no one has bothered to hack it because in the end what would you get? a crap quality mpg? a 92kbps .wav? just go bit torrent at that rate. So in many ways Hollywood (music & film) are shooting them selves in the foot by trying to keep everything so covered up because it only encourages people to pirate.

they're the reason why most sites like youtube use flash.

Reply Score: 1

no xhtml :-)
by evert on Tue 4th Dec 2007 21:57 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

i really like the quick and dirty, easy way to make a html document. i don't like xhtml forced through my throat. so, i think i will like html 5, because it offers me the choice to use xhtml or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE: no xhtml :-)
by tyrione on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:52 UTC in reply to "no xhtml :-)"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

1.1.1. Relationship to HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, DOM2 HTML

This section is non-normative.

This specification represents a new version of HTML4 and XHTML1, along with a new version of the associated DOM2 HTML API. Migration from HTML4 or XHTML1 to the format and APIs described in this specification should in most cases be straightforward, as care has been taken to ensure that backwards-compatibility is retained.

----------------

Sorry but ignoring XHTML is the last thing you want to do. Learning the well-formed structure of XML and XHTML is what you need to quickly adopt HTML 5 which is an XML compliant language.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: no xhtml :-)
by andrewg on Wed 5th Dec 2007 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE: no xhtml :-)"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

If you had of read the article you would have known the HTML 5 is SGML not XML. XHTML 5 is XML compliant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: no xhtml :-)
by Carewolf on Wed 5th Dec 2007 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no xhtml :-)"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

HTML5 is not SGML. Most of all because no browser every implemented HTML4 correctly as SGML compliant. Instead HTML5 describes in detail its own parsing technique, which in a stroke of genius happens to be a compatible parsing technique to what every browsers does to HTML4.

So if you ever want to find a document describing how even HTML4 is parsed, the HTML5 standard is the best match.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: no xhtml :-)
by andrewg on Wed 5th Dec 2007 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: no xhtml :-)"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Oops. I should have read more closely. Its inspired by SGML. Thanks for the clarification.

Reply Score: 2

RE: no xhtml :-)
by Darkelve on Wed 5th Dec 2007 07:08 UTC in reply to "no xhtml :-)"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

That's silly, since xhtml is not very much different than html... only it adheres to certain rules that can make your life easier later.

Ignoring it you might miss out on a lot of interesting technologies and evolutions... that are possible precisely because of the structured way of xhtml.

In a way it's like correct spelling. With bad spelling, readers will still be able to understand what you write, but software that has to interpret it in some way sure as hell will get confused.

Of course if you only build a small website it might not matter all that much.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: no xhtml :-)
by Carewolf on Wed 5th Dec 2007 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE: no xhtml :-)"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Actually XHTML is a lot different in techniques. Most importantly of all it isn't used correctly anywhere on the web (mostly because IE can't handle it).

However, yhat doesn't stop people from writing mock-XHTML which is parsed by browsers as quirky HTML, with all kinds of subtle bugs as a result.

This absolutely insane abuse of XHTML, is what has caused W3C, WhatWG, and all browser makers to discourage the use of XHTML. It is essentially deprecated, and considered a failed experiment.

Reply Score: 1

RE: no xhtml :-)
by brunascle on Wed 5th Dec 2007 16:08 UTC in reply to "no xhtml :-)"
brunascle Member since:
2006-12-18

why not XHTML? the XML rules are pretty simple and universal. and you dont have to remember which tags have to be closed and which dont.

and, XHTML can be parsed by a script much more easily than HTML can.

and, XHTML is easier to debug. instead of spending minutes searching for that missing tag, the browser will tell you in plain english "You're missing a tag", and point you to the location (or near it anyway).

Reply Score: 2

What about layout?
by J.R. on Tue 4th Dec 2007 22:05 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

For me, one of the most irritating things about html (and xhtml for that matter) is the visual layout. Using CSS with properties like absolute positioning and margins of hundreds of pixels seems like an ugly hack to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What about layout?
by google_ninja on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:09 UTC in reply to "What about layout?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

CSS (and layout in general) isn't part of HTML (or more specifically, xhtml), it is its own spec, and can be applied to any XML varient.

That being said, you learn to live with what you have. I very, very rarely will use absolute positioning though. margin and divs are your friends.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What about layout?
by buff on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE: What about layout?"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I agree with the layout comments. Sometimes it seemed as if CSS and the HTML specs never met the need of easy layout. I look at the code of people's sites now and some are still using tables, some use CSS with DIVs thst cludge everything together. I am surprised that something like content flowing columns was never added. It seemed so intuitive and needed. I think it still easier to nest text inside of tables because of the way they expand and flow nicely. Are columns even in HTML5 or did they consider it unnecessary and instead invent more complicated syntax. The evolution of HTML seems like the web designers that have to design in it everyday their voices and realistic needs for production were never listened to.

Edited 2007-12-05 00:28

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What about layout?
by stestagg on Wed 5th Dec 2007 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about layout?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I believe that CSS 3 has columns support, and CSS is where visual formatting information is supposed to go.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What about layout?
by Coxy on Wed 5th Dec 2007 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about layout?"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

'of HTML seems like the web designers that have to design in it everyday their voices and realistic needs for production were never listened to. '

Of course they weren't listened to. Read through the comments in this thread (or any other at OSnews for that matter) and see the hatred towards anything design orientated, or graphical. 'Screw all technologies, web pages should be just plain text' is the immpression most of them give, unfortunately, the kind of people leaving these comments are the kind of people who are anal enough to spend there freetime drawing up and commenting or W3C specs.

Reply Score: 1

In 2018 or 2022?
by sanctus on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:16 UTC
sanctus
Member since:
2005-08-31

Due to the requirement to produce test cases and achieve interoperable implementations, current estimates have work finishing in around ten to fifteen years.


So in 2018 or 2022 ?
Browser maker are in no need to rush.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In 2018 or 2022?
by tyrione on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "In 2018 or 2022?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

``The current HTML working group charter was issued on 7 March 2007. The group is chartered to continue its work through 31 December 2010.''

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In 2018 or 2022?
by destraht on Wed 5th Dec 2007 03:23 UTC in reply to "In 2018 or 2022?"
destraht Member since:
2006-08-07

"Due to the requirement to produce test cases and achieve interoperable implementations, current estimates have work finishing in around ten to fifteen years."

That seems pretty insane. That just can't be. I can see shooting for three years having everything worked out but really not getting everyone on board for another three to four years after that being a reality. I don't care if it is the greatest thing ever if it takes fifteen years we will obviously be using something like flash or silverlight for everything.

Reply Score: 1

XML
by CaptainPinko on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:38 UTC
CaptainPinko
Member since:
2005-07-21

Does not enforce XML? Ugh.

Reply Score: 2

RE: XML
by tyrione on Tue 4th Dec 2007 23:57 UTC in reply to "XML"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#evolution-not-revoluti...

2.5. Evolution Not Revolution

Revolutions sometimes change the world to the better. Most often, however, it is better to evolve an existing design rather than throwing it away. This way, authors don't have to learn new models and content will live longer. Specifically, this means that one should prefer to design features so that old content can take advantage of new features without having to make unrelated changes. And implementations should be able to add new features to existing code, rather than having to develop whole separate modes.

Switching to XML syntax requires a global change, so continue supporting classic HTML syntax as well.

Anyone who uses XML will most certainly use XML complaint syntax that is first citizen for HTML 5.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XML
by CaptainPinko on Wed 5th Dec 2007 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE: XML"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

Without XML analness well get the nonstandard compliant mess of html 4. I like the XHTML approach "if it's not correct you don't have to render it". This will force tool vendors to make sure their editors generate proper tags and will make parsing html for its data much easier.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XML
by tyrione on Wed 5th Dec 2007 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XML"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/

It depends on your design goals and the audience in which you want to interact with:

1.4.1. HTML vs XHTML

This section is non-normative.

This specification defines an abstract language for describing documents and applications, and some APIs for interacting with in-memory representations of resources that use this language.

The in-memory representation is known as "DOM5 HTML", or "the DOM" for short.

There are various concrete syntaxes that can be used to transmit resources that use this abstract language, two of which are defined in this specification.

The first such concrete syntax is "HTML5". This is the format recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web browsers. If a document is transmitted with the MIME type text/html, then it will be processed as an "HTML5" document by Web browsers.

The second concrete syntax uses XML, and is known as "XHTML5". When a document is transmitted with an XML MIME type, such as application/xhtml+xml, then it is processed by an XML processor by Web browsers, and treated as an "XHTML5" document. Generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use XML on the Web, because XML has much stricter syntax rules than the "HTML5" variant described above, and is relatively newer and therefore less mature.

The "DOM5 HTML", "HTML5", and "XHTML5" representations cannot all represent the same content. For example, namespaces cannot be represented using "HTML5", but they are supported in "DOM5 HTML" and "XHTML5". Similarly, documents that use the noscript feature can be represented using "HTML5", but cannot be represented with "XHTML5" and "DOM5 HTML". Comments that contain the string "-->" can be represented in "DOM5 HTML" but not in "HTML5" and "XHTML5". And so forth.

Reply Score: 2

Hmm...
by Almafeta on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:04 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

The Frontpage-ification of the Internet continues.

(Single-quotes used instead of angle brackets for readability.)

Some odd bits from the draft linked to above:
-- Comments in the specification are sometimes empty, and sometimes don't line up with the rest of text.
-- Using Unicode throughout the document... but then specifying that browsers need only support UTF-8 and Windows-1252... and specifying encodings that 'must not' (?!) be implemented.
-- Support for Ogg/Matroska formats in specification.
-- The 'tr' tag is forbidden within 'table' tags (?!).
-- Including end tags when none were necessary before.
-- Specifying that browsers may not play load events until pictures are loaded (what if the picture never loads) (and the article even explains how that behavior can be used to simplify the hijacking of a user's computer!).
-- Lazy coding ('div' tags) now going to spread with 'footer', 'header', etc. tags. This is similar to including 'em' and 'code' dags when 'b' and 'tt' already did what the 'new' tags done.
-- Still hasn't standardized attribute names among disparate tags.
-- Still lacks a 'macro' or 'define' tag for common code that is repeated throughout a page.
-- Still lacks an 'include' tag. (This and the former are the reason that that symptom of the Frontpage disease, CSS, have spread so quickly.)
-- Audio/video tags: Browser-dependent way to show files using an interface you know nothing about.
-- Excessively compatible with XHTML/XML.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm...
by Myrd on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:23 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
Myrd Member since:
2006-01-05

Some odd bits from the draft linked to above: ...


From the article:

During this process, feedback from a wide range of people including, among others, web designers and developers, CMS and authoring tool vendors, and browser vendors is vital to ensure its success. Everyone is not only welcome, but actively encouraged to contribute feedback on HTML 5.


So voice your comments through the venues listed in the article, rather than whine here. The point is, it's a draft, so you can voice your comment on it. Unlike proprietary stuff where some company just decides what's best.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm...
by Almafeta on Wed 5th Dec 2007 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

So voice your comments through the venues listed in the article, rather than whine here.


I'm not a member of the board (Apple/Microsoft/Opera).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm...
by chmeee on Thu 6th Dec 2007 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

You don't need to be a member of the board to voice your comments. You need only join the mailing list, and anyone can join.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm...
by Doc Pain on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:54 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"The Frontpage-ification of the Internet continues."

Of the Web, which is a subset of the Internet's services. :-)

According to your odd bits collection I'd like to comment the following ones:

"-- Using Unicode throughout the document... but then specifying that browsers need only support UTF-8 and Windows-1252... and specifying encodings that 'must not' (?!) be implemented."

When you can use UFT-8 for everything (claimed), so why there's "Windows-1252"? What about the standardized ISO charsets?

"-- Including end tags when none were necessary before."

I think that's a tribute to the XML / XHTML standard style specification where end tags were forced,

a) as a real end tag

<foo>this is a foo style content</foo>

b) as a "all in one" tag

<bar param1="val1" param2="val2) />

"-- Specifying that browsers may not play load events until pictures are loaded (what if the picture never loads) (and the article even explains how that behavior can be used to simplify the hijacking of a user's computer!)."

I think that's strange. What if a browser does not load any pictures because of its setting to load none? What about text mode browsers (essential means for blind users to access the web)?

-- Lazy coding ('div' tags) now going to spread with 'footer', 'header', etc. tags. This is similar to including 'em' and 'code' dags when 'b' and 'tt' already did what the 'new' tags done.

This is the separation of content and form as I mentioned it in my previous post when I compared this kind of text structurin to the LaTeX way. As a web developer, you don't need to specify a certain font style attribute (bold, italics), you just go on a higher level when you define a text to be emphasized and let the browser take care of it, depending on its individual setting how it will display emphasized text. You can concentrate on your actual document structure instead of doing ugly microformatting. I think that's a chance for simplification on the developer's side.

"-- Still hasn't standardized attribute names among disparate tags.

I agree, that's something I'd like to see, especially along with a look to CSS. Or, in other words: same attribute names for similar functionalities in HTML and CSS.

"-- Still lacks a 'macro' or 'define' tag for common code that is repeated throughout a page.
-- Still lacks an 'include' tag."


That's what SSI can be used for. Or abuse cpp -P on your HTML files before uploading them. Write a Makefile . :-)

% make
cpp -P index.html.pp > index.html
% make upload

Don't mind, it's a dirty hack anyway.

"(This and the former are the reason that that symptom of the Frontpage disease, CSS, have spread so quickly.)"

Exacerbatio generalis of Morbus Frontopaginalis with a comorbide attack of Micromollis fenestrae perspectivo editio ultimata? =^_^=

"-- Audio/video tags: Browser-dependent way to show files using an interface you know nothing about."

The interface should be definable by the browser, or, to be more correct, by the user. For example, some users like to have a frame with a pushbutton to launch a fullscreen video player instead of a little instand player within the page, others like an option to download a movie clip instead of playing it.

The web developer should not need to know anything about the client's configuration. Standardized behaviour could be assumed if every browser would adopt to these standards. But as we all know, MICROS~1's browsers won't, as usual.

***

I'm just staring at the screen:
http://www.alistapart.com/d/previewofhtml5/html5.jpg

I'm asking myself: What's that in this box? A smiling pudding? A pile of dust or washing powder? An egg? Can somebody tell? :-)

Edited 2007-12-05 01:01

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm...
by stestagg on Wed 5th Dec 2007 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I think it's a russian doll. If you look at the side of the box, you see the 4 smaller variants in order. And I guess the analog is with each HTML version encapsulating and extending the previous version.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm...
by Doc Pain on Wed 5th Dec 2007 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I think it's a russian doll. If you look at the side of the box, you see the 4 smaller variants in order. And I guess the analog is with each HTML version encapsulating and extending the previous version."

Hey, you're right - I didn't recognize this. The russian doll you've mentioned is called a MATPE"WKA (matryoshka, matroska). The analogy makes sense, too. Thanks for this clue!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm...
by aent on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:22 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

A lot of what you mentioned is called a synamtic design of the web. HTML is supposed to describe content, not layout, that is what CSS is for. b and i and tt are deprecated as those are layout tags. strong, em, code are meant to describe whats inside the tags, now how to format them, and may not actually make text bold, etc, depending on the device. Excessively compatible with XHTML/XML? That should be considered a good thing that HTML will comply to other standards... finally.

Reply Score: 2

Pre-Standard Implementation
by WarpKat on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:16 UTC
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

One thing I'm dreading at the moment is that some company (Microsoft) will implement a half-baked version of the standard before it even becomes a standard, and if the standard omits tags MS thinks it can't do without, guess what? The browser wars will begin all over again.

Anyone willing to put money on this?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pre-Standard Implementation
by Almafeta on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:20 UTC in reply to "Pre-Standard Implementation"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

The specification already includes at least two tags -- 'audio' and 'video' -- whose implementation are left completely up to the browser.

Soon, the three major browsers will be divided by a common standard...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pre-Standard Implementation
by Coxy on Wed 5th Dec 2007 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Pre-Standard Implementation"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Yeah, and as with HTML 4, anything without an implementation specifically defined will get rendered differently by the browsers.

Of course, people will blame MS for this and say IE gets it wrong again even though it was just left up to the browser to handle rendering, like so many of the rendering problems that are claimed to be IEs fault with HTML 4

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pre-Standard Implementation
by Beta on Wed 5th Dec 2007 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Pre-Standard Implementation"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Left completely up to the browser?
The API is defined, the behaviour is defined, the only free control they have is browser controls (and now sadly codecs too).

The audio and video tags were neutered by both Microsoft and Apple because they claim Ogg isn’t safe (patent-wise), even though it’s been in the wild for years with many people using it (some portable devices can decode it, my samsung for one).

The wording of Ogg codec support was changed from “must” to “should”.

Probably the stupidest thing W3C could have done, because even if Apple & Microsoft dont implement it, we want a good standard, right?

Reply Score: 3

Similarities to LaTeX
by Doc Pain on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:20 UTC
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

Having predefined keywords to indicate the kind of text following (heading, footer, article, sidebar etc.) is a concept that is known from LaTeX where form and content are seperated from each other. HTML 5 looks similar to this concept. You don't need to describe a look explicitely, you just declare the kind of content that will follow. The rendering engine will use its own settings to do the formatting correctly. Enumeration and references could be handled better, too, because it would not be neccessary to do them by hand.

I hope the tendency to favour free standards instead of proprietary (but widely used) formats for content inclusion, such as animations, sounds or videos will make web pages more accessible especially for disabled users who have a strong requirement for standard compliance (e. g. the alt and longdesc parameters to the img tag). These users usually are excluded from any content if the entry to a web page conglomerate is blocked by a "Flash" thing that cannot be overridden in any way, leaving the blind user with an empty Braille output.

Then, there seems to be more abstraction, again the circle to LaTeX closes. It's not neccessary for the web developer to do aligning and placement pixel-wise manually, because the browser will take care of this. Of course this implies that the browser needs to be able to adopt to these new standards and do placement correctly.

But, on the other hand, there are so many web pages out there that do not conform to any HTML standard. Can you really introduce a new standard when existing standards are treated as like they don't matter? Oh wait... what about a built-in validator for every browser that will display a "This page cannot be displayed." error message if validation fails? :-)

Still, this new concept is able to be used with the traditional way for web page creation: the text editor. Will automated designer tools apply this standard correctly? This would be an interesting question, too.

Reply Score: 3

html is lame
by chris_vickerson on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:22 UTC
chris_vickerson
Member since:
2005-08-07

...so HTML5 is going back to being more declarative and descriptive (it was a good idea then and still is) - full circle I'd say. too little too late....

hell == html/dhtml/css/javascript/jscript/plugins/activex/xml/"ajax" complicate things to the Nth to keep up with the cross versions, competing products and platform support for all the web technologies. I love hearing about new technology but I can't imagine why anyone would want a new version of any of this to come out - it's a nightmare already.

is HTML the presentation foundation of RIA and/or "describing" the internet?
silverlight 2.0 is the way out of this insanity ;)

html is dead - long live html ;)

Reply Score: 1

DRM
by stestagg on Wed 5th Dec 2007 03:38 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

What is missing from HTML 5 is DRM. It should be mandatory for each page to be encrypted and signed by a Microsoft content server. Then only WGA-enhanced Operating System installs would be able to view pages. Viewing time could be restricted by the author, up to a maximum of 5 minutes. If any HTML5 content is found on the computer that is more than 5 minutes old, then the OS is wiped, and securely erased to prevent content theft.

Reply Score: 4

OGG a replacement for Flash?!
by XemonerdX on Wed 5th Dec 2007 19:21 UTC
XemonerdX
Member since:
2005-07-03

To all those bringing up OGG as a replacement for Flash. Please explain to me how I can build an OGG-based navigation to replace a Flash-based navigation with the navigational data coming out of a database or XML? Or how I can create an OGG-based clip with some sort of interactivity beyond movie controls built into the OGG. My knowledge of OGG is quite limited, just audio/video, so maybe I'm missing something here?

Edited 2007-12-05 19:22

Reply Score: 2

RE: OGG a replacement for Flash?!
by tyrione on Wed 5th Dec 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "OGG a replacement for Flash?!"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Flash is being used as a wrapper for Audio/Video clips, but with Flash menus.

Replacing Flash with SVG and OGG using Javascript DOM objects to provide behavior/actions to your SVG objects is not difficult to imagine.

Reply Score: 3

renhoek Member since:
2007-04-29

if you want something in opensource code it yourself ;)

for all those people suggesting ogg : ogg is simply not ready to be used in webpages. my safari does not support it, ie does not support it, this will rule out 90% of the visitors.
Ogg is not widely accepted because there are no easy installers available. this is the main reason it's almost never used.

many people want a replacement for mp3 (because of patents) so getting ogg widely supported should not be extremely hard.

but for now flash is the best solution for streaming video. anything menu like can be done with html. (anyone starting a java applet to play ogg should be shot on the spot)

Reply Score: 1

Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09


Ogg is not widely accepted because there are no easy installers available. this is the main reason it's almost never used.


There's a Windows installer out there for WMP from Illiminable (linked from the main Vorbis site). So, you can't really complain that the majority of people (e.g. Windows, at least) can't use it. Heck, with Mpxplay, you can even play Ogg in DOS. :-)

Reply Score: 1