Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > HTML5

Reply
Thread Tools

HTML5

 
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2011
This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
C A Upsdell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2011
On 2011-02-18 13:22, William Gill wrote:
> This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
> figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
> HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
> in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?


How many of your visitors have browsers which don't support the HTML 5
features that you want to use? And are you willing to exclude that many
visitors from your production site?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2011
On 2/18/2011 2:24 PM, C A Upsdell wrote:
> On 2011-02-18 13:22, William Gill wrote:
>> This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
>> figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
>> HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
>> in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?

>
> How many of your visitors have browsers which don't support the HTML 5
> features that you want to use? And are you willing to exclude that many
> visitors from your production site?
>

Duh!

Good point, and good migration index.

Thanks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2011
On Feb 18, 12:22*pm, William Gill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
> figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
> HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
> in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?


First you may use any version of html down to html 2 if it meets your
needs. The w3c still has validators for older versions of html, and in
general newer browsers support earlier versions of html - they just
pile on more code as new versions come out. Unfortunately, as new
versions arrive, they will let older code through even if you use the
correct Doctype and even if the w3c validator shows errors. Some of
the computer companies are pushing html5, but it appears to be mainly
for $ and other interests of the companies, often in the media area.
Google is now using html5 on their home pages. Unfortunately, after
beating the drum for html5 and jumping the gun before html5 is even a
recommendation, they make a huge number of html5 validation errors on
their home pages as revealed at the experimental html5 checker at the
w3c. Apple and Firefox have also jumped on the html5 bandwagon on many
of their home pages. Apple has just a few validation errors, but the
Firefox home pages in html5 usually validate. Many features of html5
are not supported yet by many browsers in very common use. Consider
Microsoft's IE browsers. The IE9-beta is the first IE browser to
support the html5 video and audio elements. Only Vista and Windows 7
OSs can be updated to IE9-beta, and there are still many XP OSs being
used, especially in business. Many are likely to balk at upgrading to
Windows 7 just so they can use IE9 beta. The top Windows 7 OS costs
over $US 300, and the less fancy versions are far from cheap. You
usually can get around this problem concerning audio and video in a
html5 page by using somewhat modified conventional media code that
requires players installed on the computer and not a "house" html5
support built into the browser. In short, if you use html5 now for
writing pages, you need to know html5 and how it is supported on
various browsers very well and check your pages on many browsers still
used. This is a somewhat moving target since changes are still being
made in html5. I have written some media test pages in html5, and find
little reason to do so. The only advantage I have found for video is
that some such as Firefox and Opera, are using Ogg (.ogv) video as a
"house" format. For example, you can use ogv on a html 4.01 strict
page, but many will not have an Ogg player installed, and thus will
not be abe to view it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2011
In message <ijmdch$6i5$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>
William Gill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
> figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
> HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
> in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?


Yes, for certain values of HTML5.

The really sticking point is CSS3 (especially since CSS2.1 is still not
completely supported in most browsers).

--
"Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing
blood." - Mary Hirsch
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Lewis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In message <ijmdch$6i5$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>
> William Gill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
> > figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
> > HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
> > in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?

>
> Yes, for certain values of HTML5.
>
> The really sticking point is CSS3 (especially since CSS2.1 is still not
> completely supported in most browsers).


So, the strategy for clever but not reckless authors is to use
CSS3 (at least the bits that are widely supported) but only where
it degrades well if it does not work.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2011
dorayme wrote:

> So, the strategy for clever but not reckless authors is to use
> CSS3 (at least the bits that are widely supported) but only where
> it degrades well if it does not work.


I would say that the statement applies even if you omit the digit "3".

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gus Richter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2011
On 2/18/2011 1:22 PM, William Gill wrote:
> This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
> figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
> HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
> in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?



It is true that HTML5 is only in "draft" state, just as CSS2.1 and CSS3
are. HTML5 and is the latest defacto standard, just as CSS2.1 and CSS3
are. They are all usable and are being used as well by more and more web
sites. HTML5 is incomplete as far as the new elements are concerned
(specification and browser support). CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 also are not
fully supported by all browsers.

http://caniuse.com/

is an excellent source to check on browsers' support (including mobile)
for HTML5, CSS 2.1, CSS3, etc.

For HTML5 use this doctype: <!DOCTYPE html> All browsers (that
sniff doctype) support it, from IE5/Mac up. You can use the same
HTML4.01 elements you used before because all HTML4.01 elements are
still supported. The bonus is that you can also use the new elements
available in HTML5, in as much as they are supported by all browsers,
which you will have to keep track of until all settles down. There is
nothing new about this - we've been doing this all along. The HTML5
doctype is a reduction of the HTML4.01 Strict doctype down to the
minimum required portions to satisfy legacy doctype sniffing (removes
all the fluff). It also places the browsers into Standards Mode. There
is only the one in HTML5. Nothing new here as well - we've been told to
use Strict doctype for all new documents for quite some time now.

You may use the same markup as for HTML 4.01 Strict if you prefer, or
pick up shortcuts that HTML5 offers. If you want to use some of the new
HTML5 elements, which it will support, just realize that some of them
are not yet supported by all browsers.

--
Gus

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2011
Gus Richter wrote:

> It is true that HTML5 is only in "draft" state, just as CSS2.1 and
> CSS3 are.


No it isn't. Not "just as".

CSS 2.1 is a working draft that has remained fairly stable for several
years, it is written in the form of a specification to the extent that W3C
deliverables ever are, it is actively promoted by the W3C, and it is
generally cited as the "de facto standard" for CSS (contrary to what it says
about itself, at least nominally).

CSS 3 is a collection of sketchy documents of very varying maturity and
activity around them. They even contain loads of "what should we do about
this?" statements, indicating that they are "working documents" much more
than draft or proposed recommendations are.

HTML5 is vague name for activities both at the W3C and at the WHATWG, and
everyone has his own idea of what topics belong to HTML5 - some people even
count CSS 3 as part of HTML5! The oxymoron "living standard", used by the
WHATWG, is revealing: to them, HTML5 is whatever happens to be in the WHATWG
document today.

> HTML5 and is the latest defacto standard, just as CSS2.1
> and CSS3 are.


Do I need to repeat the explanation of why that characterization is utterly
wrong?

> They are all usable


No doubt about that, though they should only be used by people who
understand the implications and complications. Well, this applies to any
technology, but still.

> HTML5 is incomplete as far as the new elements
> are concerned (specification and browser support).


HTML5 is largely still just talk about what should be included. Of course,
as the topic is technical, the talk needs to be technical and often rather
detailed.

> CSS 2.1 and CSS 3
> also are not fully supported by all browsers.


Neither is CSS 4. You cannot even _define_ support when there is no
semi-stable draft for a semi-specification. It would be much more adequate
to say that CSS 2.1 is reasonably well supported by newest versions of
popular browsers when used in "standards" mode (but there are still
essential problems, especially due to use of pre-IE8 versions of IE),
whereas those parts of CSS 3 that have been reasonably well sketched-out and
stablish have _some_ support (usually partial, excluding the difficult
parts) in _some_ modern browsers.

> The bonus is that you can also use the new elements
> available in HTML5, in as much as they are supported by all browsers,


Which means pretty much none. Well, <wbr> might be counted in, and <nobr>
but oops, that one is "obsolete".

The new elements you can use are those that require no special support, like
<nav>, and those that can be reasonably well simulated in or taught to IE6
through IE8. For example, if you wish to style a <nav>, you should say
document.createElement("nav")
in a script, called before the first CSS reference, to teach that element
(just as an existing element, no features) to CSS. And if you wish to use
<canvas>, well, you have some more things to do.

> If you want to use some of the
> new HTML5 elements, which it will support, just realize that some of
> them are not yet supported by all browsers.


Get real. Most of them are not supported by any browser or are supported by
just one or two minority browser. There's still a lot in HTML5 that can be
used even today, and there's a lot more to be learned and experimented for
future use. But the situation is very different from that of HTML 4 - about
_it_ you could say that some of its features are not yet supported by all
browsers.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2011
In article <9Pn8p.13501$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > So, the strategy for clever but not reckless authors is to use
> > CSS3 (at least the bits that are widely supported) but only where
> > it degrades well if it does not work.

>
> I would say that the statement applies even if you omit the digit "3".


If a visitor has CSS off, the result should be a usable page, not
a dog's breakfast, agreed.

I just meant that among the visitors who have CSS, a few dropped
CSS3 styles might not take them all the way back to completely
basic styling provided by browser (though, it is a wonder to
behold how improved some sites are on doing just this).

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought on HTML5 vs Flash Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 3 03-21-2010 02:35 PM
HTML5 and HTTP pranay HTML 2 10-19-2009 10:16 AM
HTML5 Ganesh HTML 70 09-23-2009 05:19 PM
HTML5 vs. XHTML n0ctis HTML 4 08-18-2008 03:11 PM
html5 vs xhtml2 Robert Jones HTML 16 12-14-2007 11:34 PM



Advertisments