Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:46 UTC
Web 2.0 InfoWorld's Peter Wayner discusses the 11 hard truths Web developers must accept in making the most of HTML5 -- especially those who are looking to leverage HTML5 in hopes of unseating native apps. 'The truth is, despite its powerful capabilities, HTML5 isn't the solution for every problem. Its additional features are compelling and will help make Web apps formidable competitors for native apps, but security issues, limitations of local data storage, synchonization challenges, and politics should have us all scaling back our expectations for the spec.'
Permalink for comment 485370
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
HTML 5 == Pointless Bloat
by deathshadow on Tue 16th Aug 2011 19:33 UTC
Member since:

Would be nice if the article had anything to do with HTML... but then, it would be nice if HTML 5 had anything useful to offer in terms of HTML, instead of being a market-speak buzzword (Fran hit this on the head).

A hefty part of why Javascript and CSS3 and a whole slew of other technologies have been thrown under the general HTML 5 banner is that from a markup standpoint, HTML 5 offers little if any improvement, and instead bloats out the markup for no good reason with it's new allegedly "semantic" tags -- FEW of which do anything useful a DIV can't, and seem to exist in the specification for the sole purpose of placating the people who vomit up HTML 3.2, slap a transitional doctype on it, then have the cojones to call themselves a modern developer. Congratulations, you're in transition from 1997 to 1998 -- Way to keep those skills up to date!

Now, instead of hooking up with a tranny they slap a HTML 5 Lip-service doctype on it, and still have their heads permenantly wedged up 1998's backside. The scary part is, this means that ALL the progress of HTML 4 Strict and/or XHTML 1.0 Strict is being flushed right down the crapper. So go ahead, sleaze out your page any old way with endless wrapping containers and to hell with putting anything in the already existing semantic tags properly -- That's what HTML 5 from a markup standpoint is for!

Of course, you'll have the people going "what about audio and video" to which I reply "what the hell is wrong with object apart from browser makers dragging their heels?" -- Many browser specific tags (like EMBED) were not adopted in 4 Strict (aka the REAL HTML 4) and the APPLET tag was dropped for being redundant to OBJECT, and we were SUPPOSED to have IMG go away at some point too -- this way you want to support the latest and greatest format, you just install the format... How the bloody hell is hard-coding the blasted codec into the browser "better" apart from stroking the ego of each browser makers favorite pet codec. It sure as hell doesn't make video distribution simpler with needing to distribute in what? Three formats? FOUR? Oh yeah, re-encoding that file four times is such an improvement and makes development so much simpler... much less the total lack of security technologies or even full-screen playback that makes most of your 'real' video sites either use it as a fallback for crappy devices that don't support flash, or just give it the finger entirely. NEVER thought I'd be rooting for flash on anything, but HTML 5 has made me a believer.

Now of course, EMBED is adopted (what the hell?!? a decade of saying "don't use that we just throw up our hands and say "whatever"... For 4 Menu and DIR were dropped as redundant to UL -- now menu is back and frankly, for christmas only knows what.

Then we have the elements that have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to EXIST as tags -- like CANVAS. Canvas is useless without javascript -- it only exists for javascript -- so why does it need a markup element again? Couldn't we just draw on an existing tag or create a dom element using the script? There is no reason for it to have it's own tag in the markup.

You figure in the bloat of the pointless allegedly semantic "header, nav" elements that seem to exist JUST to placate the people who slap extra DIV around tags for NOTHING... tags like FOOTER and SECTION that you'll end up slapping ID's on anyways just to resolve specificity... combined with most people STILL using tags for what they look like instead of what they mean -- and it's hardly a shock you see bloated slow inaccessible pages vomited up using hundreds of K of code to deliver less than 10k of content. Because naturally, more code that does nothing useful makes the page faster and easier to maintain. RIGHT.

To hell with HTML 5. I have NO plans to migrate past HTML 4.01 Strict and/or XHTML 1.0 Strict -- at least not until HTML 6 comes along and deprecates 90% of this new stuff as redundant to existing tags and never actually used properly... Just like 4 Strict did to HTML 3.2

Because to be brutally frank, HTML 5 -- in terms of what it offers for actually marking up content for a site -- is the new HTML 3.2. No, that's not a compliment. I can't believe after trying it for more than ten minutes anyone would be DUMB ENOUGH to even want to use it in the first place; But then it does also seem to exist to prey off the ignorance of nubes and to help places like Sitepoint sell new books.

CSS3, the new scripting? Great stuff... you take those away from HTML 5, you have a empty pointless shell setting website coding practices back a decade or more... Or would be setting it back a decade if more than a handful of developers actually bothered to understand STRICT, the separation of presentation from content, accessibility, or even the entire POINT of HTML.

Edited 2011-08-16 19:34 UTC

Reply Score: 9