Slashdot Mirror
W3C Announces Plan To Deliver HTML 5 by 2014
The World Wide Web Consortium has proposed "a new plan that would see the HTML 5 spec positioned as a Recommendation—which in W3C's lingo represents a complete, finished standard—by the end of 2014. The group plans a follow-up, HTML 5.1, for the end of 2016." Instead of working toward one-specification-to-rule-them-all in 2022, features that are stable and implemented in multiple browsers now will be finalized as HTML 5.0 by 2014 with unstable features moved into HTML 5.1 (developed in parallel). In 2014, the commonly implemented parts of HTML 5.1 will begin finalization for 2016, with the unstable parts moved into HTML 5.2 (wash, rinse, repeat). Additionally, things like Web Sockets are being moved into their own modular standards (sound familiar?) for "...the social benefits that accrue from such an approach. Splitting out separate specifications allows those technologies to be advanced by their respective communities of interest, allowing more productive development of approaches that may eventually be able reach broader consensus."
Wow, let's not rush into anything here guys.
Just in time for the first HTML6 browsers.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Which bit is the Fear, which is the Uncertainty and which is the Doubt? Or are you just using FUD as a synonym for "bad" for no apparent reason?
I wonder if it will even matter anymore?
With everyone willingly giving up everything to go into walled gardens, and the obvious superiority of native code applications*, is HTML5 a dead end?
Discuss! (ha)
* Not saying that pretty much all apps on smartphones I've used aren't buggy, featureless, poorly designed piece of shit--they are--so much so. And I love the openness of using web sites and never having to need to update my software. I love it. I'm just saying they have the *potential*.
So basically it's the browser vendors that eventually determine what goes in and what stays out? How much of an influence will Internet Explorer have on this?
Finalize the things that we already have, this long-stretched process is already hurting the web.
And by 2019, all the browsers on the market may actually support it consistently, just like they did with HTML2, HTML3, HTML4! (that was sarcastic for the sarcasm challenged).
Seriously, the world wide web and HTML itself are just a series of horrible bits of sticky tape which no longer stick to anything and string that is very frayed. It's like a train in India (most of the passengers on the outside). It only works by some remarkable coincidence of the same order of magnitude of how life managed to evolve on this planet. Every client interprets it differently. Every client displays it differently. Every server serves it differently. Security was an afterthought. HTML5 suddenly being ratified and published isn't going to make these problems go away.
For ref, this is not because I don't get it. I've been kicking out web applications on and off for 16 years. Even desktop development with Swing is beautiful compared to this crapfest.
Someone just needs to fix it (no XKCD 927 here please :).
Can we get rid of Flash, now?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The Duke Nukem of markup languages
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Someone will always want the <blink> tag.
As I see it, the <blink> element is presentational and should ideally be implemented with CSS text-decoration:blink or with a CSS animation on an element's opacity. It could gain a retconned semantic meaning, just as the <b>, <i>, <s>, and <hr> elements did in HTML5, but I don't see what that meaning would be.
If you want something to run cross platform, and don't have any taxing performance requirements, [HTML5] is an easy way to go.
So how should an HTML5 app on current devices access the device's camera or microphone?
What format for vector animations, such as the Homestar Runner short films, are you proposing that is superior to Flash?
And this is a huge problem for me as well, as I'm working on a project hoping for something better out of HTML5.
Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all. It's a simple "video" tag, which offers very little flexibility. h.264 will be the standard, VP8 is effectively dead. And that's fine, but when you have a situation where you want to auto adjust the quality based on bandwith (ala Silverlight "Smooth Streaming" or Flash), you can't do it in HTML5.
There's a project in works called MPEG DASH to do something around this, but that project is moving slower than molasses. I think people are content to keep using Flash or Silverlight, but in reality.. developers really want better options and HTML5 is already an archaic standard in a lot of senses.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I'm really worried. I've actually said the W3C should do everything they're going to do. It's not like the world is gaining sanity, which means I'm the one going insane.
I'm wondering what they'll be doing for the doctype declaration though, since it doesn't indicate any version (which is short sighted in my opinion)
Doesn't anyone have problem with the full source code being available? I mean if you develop with HTML5 and JS the full source is there. I think companies might have a problem with that.
Doesn't anyone have problem with the full source code being available?
Why would the source being open be a problem? If I'm running something blindly off the internet, I want to know what it's doing. I take it you're not a fan of open source software? If the source is closed, how can you trust the code? I'll take open source over closed any day.
Free Martian Whores!
hmm i wonder if adobe will start selling a modified version their drm scheme that is currently used on pdf's and epub's as a drm scheme for HTML5, CSS, and Javascript?
PS i here by patent drm schema implemented on web-scripting languages,
PSS and on a mobile device
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
You still have to build separate packages for different platforms
And pay each platform's annual fee. A $99 per platform per year fee adds up, especially if you're trying to provide a $0.00 app across iOS, Windows Phone, and Amazon Appstore.
I tell ya, this new generation who doesn't care to optmizing anything. Lets just write the crappiest software we can and throw more money at the problem...
And no, not everyone will have fiber to their home. They may have 20mbs internet via copper but they won't have fiber unless everybody chips in $1000 per home (Not even sure that would cover it)
If these people we would have college age newborns!
I'm not up on this stuff, but is there a way to "require" the browser makers to conform to the W3C standards? Or is it strictly voluntary in so much as they want to appeal to as many people as possible? Is the only "punishment" getting lambasted by Web developers and seeing a down-tick in usage?
IMO minified JS is not much different in this regard from java or flash. Both Java and Flash can be readilly decompiled back to something resembling source code.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
The semantic meaning of the element according to W3C's HTML5 draft is a paragraph-level tHematic bReak.
People watch animations on Youtube now. It's 2012, we have the bandwidth.
Not necessarily. It's 2012, people are watching on laptops and tablets, and mobile broadband plans are still limited to 5 GB per month on the whole. Even some home Internet providers, such as HughesNet and WildBlue, still have caps (or "fair access policies") that amount to single digit GB per month. I tried converting an SWF to a video, and it became ten times bigger. This means if you can watch x number of SWFs on Newgrounds on a 5 GB/mo plan, you'd need a 50 GB/mo plan to watch the same SWFs converted to video.
For another thing, YouTube videos are not interactive, unlike Flash games. Games would need to use HTML5 canvas, which has drawbacks that I mentioned in my reply to Anonymous Coward.
... why doesn't the W3C make a browser (or a rendering engine) that implements 100% of the spec 100% perfectly? (No, Amaya isn't quite it.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I just wish they could agree on something. I spent 30 minutes the other night on the phone with my father who was trying to register some new space heater, and the website wasn't written properly, and the java script never would display properly. Once I closed out his browser and opened a different one, it then worked properly. Either that, or ban java script....Some sites, I have to work between 3 browsers, depending on which one works with a certain site.
Even the page you pointed to has Chrome listed as supporting it.
Then the page I pointed to must be wrong. I visited this demo in Chrome for Android (version 18.0.1025308) on my Nexus 7 and got the error message "Your browser doesn’t support all required features: WebRTC getUserMedia". I visited the same demo in Chromium Browser for GNU/Linux (version 18.0.1025.168) on my computer and got the same error message. Might it have something to do with the message "Requires this prefix to work" that I get when I hover over Chrome's entry?