«

I just read the following:

As I type this, Firefox 3.5 is blazing past 5.6 million downloads,
having been released just a day and a half ago. While such uptake
for Mozilla's upgraded browser is impressive, the bigger story is
how Firefox 3.5 is upgrading the Web with its extensive support for
HTML 5. Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) 8 has brought the
company's browser back into the 21st century, but its sluggish (and
perhaps perverse) response to emerging Web standards threatens to
leave it in Web 1.0 Blunderland.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10277364-16.html


So while W3C states at the start of the HTML 5 spec:

Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable.
Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely
to find the specification changing out from under them in
incompatible ways. Vendors interested in implementing this
specification before it eventually reaches the Candidate
Recommendation stage should join the aforementioned mailing lists
and take part in the discussions.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

Apparently the Mozilla Firefox group has things settled in their minds.

Pray tell what web developers should be doing.

On 01 Jul 2009, Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote:

>
> I just read the following:
>
> As I type this, Firefox 3.5 is blazing past 5.6 million
> downloads, having been released just a day and a half ago.
> While such uptake for Mozilla's upgraded browser is
> impressive, the bigger story is how Firefox 3.5 is upgrading
> the Web with its extensive support for HTML 5. Microsoft's
> Internet Explorer (IE) 8 has brought the company's browser
> back into the 21st century, but its sluggish (and perhaps
> perverse) response to emerging Web standards threatens to
> leave it in Web 1.0 Blunderland.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10277364-16.html
>
>
> So while W3C states at the start of the HTML 5 spec:
>
> Implementors should be aware that this specification is not
> stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the
> discussions are likely to find the specification changing out
> from under them in incompatible ways. Vendors interested in
> implementing this specification before it eventually reaches
> the Candidate Recommendation stage should join the
> aforementioned mailing lists and take part in the discussions.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
>
> Apparently the Mozilla Firefox group has things settled in their
> minds.
>
> Pray tell what web developers should be doing.

Stick with current standards and let the future take care of itself.
That is always the answer to that question. Firefox uniquenesses
aren't any more exonerable than ie uniquenesses so until an element is
actually sanctioned by the w3c it is quite invalid and shouldn't be
employed in any respectable general-audience page.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

On Jul 2, 4:29*am, Neredbojias <neredboj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pray tell what web developers should be doing.
> Stick with current standards and let the future take care of itself.

You are so poetic

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Patient Guy
<sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> writing in
news:Xns9C3C639EC7E90UVAA@207.115.33.102:

>
> I just read the following:
>
> As I type this, Firefox 3.5 is blazing past 5.6 million
> downloads, having been released just a day and a half ago.
> While such uptake for Mozilla's upgraded browser is impressive,
> the bigger story is how Firefox 3.5 is upgrading the Web with
> its extensive support for HTML 5. Microsoft's Internet Explorer
> (IE) 8 has brought the company's browser back into the 21st
> century, but its sluggish (and perhaps perverse) response to
> emerging Web standards threatens to leave it in Web 1.0
> Blunderland.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10277364-16.html
>
>
> So while W3C states at the start of the HTML 5 spec:
>
> Implementors should be aware that this specification is not
> stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions
> are likely to find the specification changing out from under
> them in incompatible ways. Vendors interested in implementing
> this specification before it eventually reaches the Candidate
> Recommendation stage should join the aforementioned mailing
> lists and take part in the discussions.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
>
> Apparently the Mozilla Firefox group has things settled in their
> minds.
>
> Pray tell what web developers should be doing.

I'm playing with it on my development server. Opera supports some of
HTML5, and the W3C validator can now do validation for it (of course
with big notices that it's experimental).

HTML5 forms and Opera: [http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/improve-your-
forms-using-html5/]

The Canvas element is also fun:
http://code.google.com/p/paintweb/

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

> I'm playing with it on my development server.

Have fun.

> Opera supports some of HTML5,

Browsers have claimed funny HTML x.x support through the years.

> and the W3C validator can now do validation for it

You misspelled "heuristic linting".

> (of course with big notices that it's experimental).

You misspelled "bogus".

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On 02 Jul 2009, Travis Newbury <> wrote:

> On Jul 2, 4:29*am, Neredbojias <neredboj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Pray tell what web developers should be doing.
>> Stick with current standards and let the future take care of itself.
>
> You are so poetic

Poetic? I thought I was being practical and sensible. Generally I
only wax poetic when I'm bored, nauseated, or horny.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jukka K. Korpela"
<> writing in news:sA73m.19675$vi5.19109
@uutiset.elisa.fi:

> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>
>> I'm playing with it on my development server.
>
> Have fun.

I am having fun. I said I was playing, and I meant playing.

>
>> Opera supports some of HTML5,
>
> Browsers have claimed funny HTML x.x support through the years.
>
>> and the W3C validator can now do validation for it
>
> You misspelled "heuristic linting".

Ok.

>
>> (of course with big notices that it's experimental).
>
> You misspelled "bogus".
>

I don't think I would call something bogus that's still in embryo stage.

As I said, I'm just having fun - nothing is going live, no harm done.


--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

On 2 July, 07:47, Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote:

> Pray tell what web developers should be doing.

HTML 4.01 Strict, and get it right. Minimal semantic HTML, decent
fluid layout done with CSS.

Ignore HTML 5. It will be years before you have a hope of serving it
to clients with enough take-up by them to be at all useful, then if
you look closely at it you'll find it's a bag of crazy half-ideas that
just can't work within the constraints they've already accepted for
themselves.

I care a lot more about RDFa than I do about HTML5