"W3C today published an early draft of HTML 5, a major revision of the markup language for the Web. The HTML Working Group is creating HTML 5 to be the open, royalty-free specification for rich Web content and Web applications. The group operates entirely in public with nearly five hundred participants, including representatives from W3C Members ACCESS, AOL, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nokia, and Opera. Some of the most interesting new features for authors are APIs for drawing two-dimensional graphics, embedding and controlling audio and video content, maintaining persistent client-side data storage, and for enabling users to edit documents and parts of documents interactively. Authors write HTML 5 using either a 'classic' HTML syntax or an XML syntax, according to application demands. See a list of changes from HTML 4."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-10-19
Member since:2005-07-07
Arial, Verdana and Times? Don't you mean serif, sans-serif and mono? That's something up to the browsers to choose which typeface to use for those types. And you can use CSS and tell the browser to use wichever font you want to use as long as you fall back to one of the standard fonts if the user doesn't have the font you want to use.
It would be nice tough if you could upload your desired font to the server and have the browser download the font from the server. But It would have to be implemented outside of the HTML markup, IMHO.
Something like:
would be my wish.
edit:should have used the preview button.
Edited 2008-01-23 17:24 UTC
Member since:2005-07-07
It would be nice tough if you could upload your desired font to the server and have the browser download the font from the server. But It would have to be implemented outside of the HTML markup, IMHO.
You can do this already and have been able to for a long time. There are a few different ways of doing it but unfortunately different implementations work to varying degrees on different browsers.
Member since:
2006-03-20
I'll be excited when they give up the "design by committee" and impose a strict unambiguous XML HTML.
Such a HTML standard would:
* fail pages with even minor errors - lets have the end of lazy and lax coding.
* provide a standard set of comprehensive tests which would certify browsers, both by capability and correctness but also performance. This may mean versions of browsers may fail or regress - it would also point the finger at non-compliance from browsers such as MSIE.
* do away with all presentation tags - HTML for content only, CSS for styling.
In the absence of the above, HTML5 will not have addressed the biggest problems of the previous standards. The biggest pain is divergent browsers and the refusal to accept responsibility. A strict and unambiguous HTML would finally point the finger where it belongs.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Not really. If you specify something in pixels e.g. font sizes, column widths, images then it makes things much harder for the OS. It has to scale things based on pixel density which I think will lead to differences between OS's because of implementation.
But really sites need to be designed in terms of flexible units that the user can easily scale and preferably provide default dimensions in terms of some unit of length. I think pts are fine for text.
Then you can setup your style sheets for different device types.
Member since:2005-10-10
Member since:2006-01-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
I truly don't get why they waste resources to make another "standard" when we've already got XHTML. Website developers, it's really not that hard to make your site XHTML compliant. Get off your lazy asses and work for once instead of bitching about backwards compatibility! People will always need to upgrade their software anyway.
Member since:2005-07-08
"why they waste resources to make another "standard" when we've already got XHTML"
The existing XHTML standard is fine as long as it fulfills all the needs, hopes and expectations of web developers and Internet users. However, obviously that is not always the case. HTML5 offers lots of promising new features and improvements that can improve Internet for both developers and users. Besides, HTML5 is based on XHTML, so it is not so much replacing the XHTML standard but trying to improve it.
My main worry is if a few big corporations were allowed to dictate the web and other standards (for example, what kind of multimedia is supported directly in HTML, only a couple of proprietary formats or also more open multimedia formats?). Why should a few corporate bosses have the power to dictate to all others on the planet how the Internet should be developed and used? Of course big corporations are important and worth listening to. But we don't live on this planet only to serve the interest of a few corporations - but instead, the mission of those big corporations should be to serve us, people.
Edited 2008-01-23 20:55 UTC