Linked by lucas_maximus on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:09 UTC
Microsoft "In a move that has raised eyebrows, Microsoft has submitted a patch to the WebKit project to extend the open source rendering engine with a prototype implementation of the Pointer Events specification that the company is also working on together with Google, Mozilla, and Opera. WebKit is the rendering engine used in Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome browsers, making Microsoft's work a contribution to products that are in direct competition to its own."
Thread beginning with comment 546138
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by deathshadow on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Much of that stems from a fundamental flaw in the mindset behind the steaming pile of pointless nonsense known as HTML 5.

I come from an engineering background -- where I'm from you make a specification BEFORE you start implementing it. It's called an authoritative document for a reason.

HTML 5 is NOT authoritative, it's documentative. That's what the whole 'living document' and even trying to get rid of versioning idiocy is about. Let the browser makers do whatever it is they want, and we'll just document it. Some "Specification"!

Combine that with the loosened structural rules, presentational elements they are trying to sell people on being semantic, and re-introduction of redundancies, and HTML 5 is NOT an improvement, it's carefully crafted to undo all the progress of 4 STRICT, and bring us back to the WORST of HTML 3.2 and the peak of the browser wars.

In that way I suspect it was built almost entirely to satiate the wants and desires of the inept fools who haven't pulled their heads out of 1997's backside, and for the past decade have been writing HTML 3.2 and slapping 4 tranny on it. Now they just wrap HTML 5's lip-service doctype on it while still crapping out the same broken methodologies -- net improvement zero... Such developers missing that transitional markup means you are in transition from 1997 to 1998 coding practices.

Which is where a lot of my series of articles here:
http://techtalkin.com/Thread-So-what-s-wrong-with-your-website

Comes from... broken, outdated or just plain wrong site development practices, much of which stems from people failing to pull their heads out of 1997's arse -- even when writing HTML 5... as if the advantages of leveraging caching models and accessibility through building using progressive enhancement and separation of presentation from content is 'evil' or 'harder'. Last time I checked, using less code with clear strict rules telling you how to do it isn't "harder"... probably can be blamed on the *WAH, WAH, I DON'T WANNA LEARN, I JUST WANT A WEBSITE* idiocy... which is how fat bloated broken overpriced crap like Dreamweaver continues to be promoted as the industry standard tool... when the only thing about it that can be considered professional grade tools are the people promoting it's use.

I'd be remiss in pointing out much of what people CALL HTML 5 -- isn't HTML -- in that it's not MARKUP. It's CSS3 or new javascripted stuff. There's a reason they up and decided to slap those under HTML 5's banner -- and it's that without them the emperor is standing bare for all the world to see. All the 'cool' stuff is in either of those, and there is NOTHING preventing you from using them in the older STRICT recommendation HTML 4 or XHTML 1.0 documents!

There's a reason I have zero plans to use HTML 5 for making markup, plan on sticking with XHTML 1.0 STRICT for the forseeable future -- though I AM using the new scripting and CSS3. HTML 5 offers few if any real world advantages, undoes all the progress of the past 15 years... leaving me asking "Benefits? What benefits?!?"

As I explain here:
http://techtalkin.com/Thread-So-what-s-wrong-with-HTML-5

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by deathshadow on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 22:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Oops, should say "remiss in FAILING to point out"... Past edit limit.

Reply Parent Score: 2