Slashdot Mirror
Google Introduces HTML 5.1 Tag To Chrome
darthcamaro (735685) writes "Forget about HTML5, that's already passe — Google is already moving on to HTML5.1 support for the upcoming Chrome 38 release. Currently only a beta, one of the biggest things that web developers will notice is the use of the new "picture" tag which is a container for multiple image sizes/formats. Bottom line is it's a new way to think about the "IMG" tag that has existed since the first HTML spec."
I thought that with the introduction of HTML5, they were going to stop numbered standards... all revisions to the spec would fall (confusingly) under the HTML5 moniker. I'm happy if that turned out to be untrue.
can we give the WHATWG the credit they deserve now?
the W3C (including "inventor of the internet" Behrners-Lee) intentionally retarded the development of new HTML & CSS standards in order to push for 'baked-in' DRM/tracking capability...
they couldn't get the changes into a version of HTML, so they sat on their thumbs and used process to keep HTML from progressing...repeat: W3C tried to keep new development of HTML from happening
enter WHATWG
we only have HTML5 & CSS3 because of WHATWG...look at the W3C...they **still** are on some 3.2.1.4 version of HTML
let's get HTML5.1 across all platforms and make it the permanent development channel...it practically is so already, but I want to see people integrate this important truth of the **development of the whole internet** into their (your!) schema for tech
Thank you Dave Raggett
I thought we already had this with the img tag's srcset attribute. Do we really need a new tag?
So it's in the guise of "standardisation", except in name only. There is no standard is the new standard.
And it does mean you need to keep on updating your web browser or you get shut out of steadily ever more websites that used to work just fine with the exact same browser last week. It is in fact fashionable to look at user agents and not merely complain, no, simply present a "we don't like your browser, fuck you" page without so much as contact information to the website owners or anything.
This includes websites that present little more than text with illustrations. That's right, among the websites that are harshly shutting out browsers for not having quite enough of this new html5 sauce are those that could've done perfectly well with just the features html3 provides. If this is called progress, you can keep it.
I'm certainly going to get some really nice subwoofer to go with this.
Not really 5.1. Most browsers are implementing the picture tag...however, it is important to note that they're the first to have a release supporting it. This topic Haas been discussed since responsive web design had an acronym.
So now we have a relabeled "TIFF" container?
Tagged Interchange File Format (TIFF) has been around since the 1980s; the Amiga had a nice version, and I used them in a very old document system for the US Navy. The file could hold multiple instances of the same data, in different formats. A picture could be JPEG, GIF, a PDF bitmap, ..., for example, and the platform displayed/printed whatever it could.
Well, I'm going to support HTML 6.9. With Hookers and Blackjack.
In fact, forget the Blackjack!
Well, why did you move to a modern multi GB / GHz / TB / Gbps machine, "oughtn't 640K to be enough for anybody ?"
depreciated
... the use of the new "picture" tag which is a container for multiple image sizes/formats ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The 5.1 label was just to separate it out, the intention of most was to have it live so that there is no new version. As you probably know already, most the major stuff is not directly under HTML5 but are side groups which either are under HTML5 or they are separate but are treated like they are part of HTML5 (openGL or web sockets for example.) New tags like MAIN, DETAIL, FIGURE or PICTURE, well those ended up in HTML5 but were not around or changed quite a bit. Firefox still doesn't support DETAIL even though it has had decent documentation for quite a while now (it didn't for a long time...)
The mature people involved realized that version numbers do not mean a whole lot because vendors market themselves as supporting "STANDARD X.Y" but lack full support or correct support (MS being a great example.) There is little practical reason for versions because they do not mean a whole lot and real world developers have to work around mixed user support anyway.
If you don't like the PICTURE tag, try to get HTTP 1 & 2 to finally finish the drafts on image sizes so we can do the content negotiation on the server; where it belongs. The whole reason this came about was there was no smart way to get IMG to handle it and there is a use case where CSS media queries (which is not really css 3.x either) do not work. You should be using CSS but when you can't PICTURE is what you use if you can't configure your server (I would suggest some JS that sets a cookie until the browsers finally start sending the info.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
layout tables, blink, and image maps ftw. and o yea, dont forget the comic sans.
Sidetabs back in Chrome yet?
No? Chrome still sucks then.
I see you have been properly brainwashed by decades of consumerism and planned obsolescence. Time for you to be a good little consumer and keep replacing your music and movie collections yet again, your smartphone every year, your automobile every 2 years, and your house every 5 years, otherwise our economic house of cards based on limitless perpetual growth will collapse.
Tim Berners-Lee didn't invent the internet, he is credited with inventing the World Wide Web.
I didn't. The world around me did, i am still using older hardware but it is not like it is economical to keep upgrading it without going GB/GHz. So yes, forced upgrades - I have no choice in the matter unless i make vintage hardware my lifestyle.
Well, why did you move to a modern multi GB / GHz / TB / Gbps machine, "oughtn't 640K to be enough for anybody ?"
These days 640 KB RAM is not sufficient even for command-line GNU/Linux running terminal-mode applications.
Actually the img tag still works, and HTML 5.1 picture tag (and many others) provide fall backs for browsers that don't support the new tag(s). Moreover, responsive images (picture tags) will save bandwidth and provide better art direction.
Firefox has nearly completed their own implementation, and I'm sure Webkit isn't far behind either. I really don't understand the outrage in this case. It's useful technology that no one has to use, has sensible fallbacks, should be supported at roughly the same time if all goes well, and has variants coming out at the same time (srcset) to try to give page authors control over their resources. Further, none of the bright ideas others have suggested are comparatively good ideas that will lead to less of a mess, and people have been asking for this for responsive site designs for years.
This isn't the same thing as the MSE/EME fiasco, or even the HTML5 video codec fiasco. Google hasn't just done whatever the hell they want, and used their clout to make everyone else just have to grin and bear it. This time it's something that basically has willing consensus, and doesn't leave everyone a year behind Chrome like some dastardly villain bait and switching everyone while twirling their mustache.
your comment is a good way to incite off-topic controversy and deflect attention from the **content of my post**
which is actually important stuff...think about what I've presented and stop being a grammar nazi
Thank you Dave Raggett
I know who invented the damn internet (not Behrners-Lee or Gore) and the whole notion that the abstraction that is the "world wide web" was somehow important to the **actual internet** is ridiculous
nit picking? i never put up a nit for you to pick! you're putting words in my mouth
non-tech media types say "Tim Behner's Lee, the man who invented the internet" all the time...it is a *common misconception*
Behner's-Lee didn't do anything especially noteworthy in the development of the internet...the 'world wide web' is just a marketing phrase...not noteworthy...his technical contributions were as part of a working group and many others have done much more noteworthy work
Thank you Dave Raggett
what does that prove?
NOTHING
the WHATWG is the only reason HTML/CSS has had any relevant improvements and, most importantly, ****the W3C has been purposefully hampering HTML/CSS development****
if I'm right it's a big f-ing deal...no one has presented any counterpoint...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Last night I finally started reading an old book, HTML: The Definitive Guide, 3rd. ed., published in 1998. "HTML is a young language, barely five years old," it begins, "but already in its fourth interation. Don't be surprised if another version appears before you finish reading this book."
I smiled to myself. If only he had known that HTML 4 would stay with us for eleven years, and that when 5 came out, they said they wouldn't update the version numbers anymore.
But the book was right: another version came out before I finished it.
more 'standards' just to obsolete every browser and stimulate undesired upgrades.
Says the guy with Windows XP and IE6.
Do we really expect half a dozen alternative image resolution substitutes in common websites? Whom does this extension serve? It's basically just a more complex lowsrc=.
Shouldn't the WHATWG rather spent some thought on streamlining HTTP Content-Negotation for this? That's precisely meant for delivering degraded content and device-specific representations. You'd think the major browser vendors could bring up a coherent Accept-Feature list for such purposes instead of concocting tedious markup workarounds. (Well, at least it's the same cheap workaround as with <video> then.)
What's wrong about upgrading to a newer browser that is FREE and will help push the Web forward? Or would you rather still be stuck with GIFs instead of PNGs, software-rendered RealVideo instead of hardware-accelerated HTML5 video and require the Java plug-in just to have stupid hover effects?
The wonderful thing about standards is that we have so many of them to choose from.
You are right, but the comment you are replying to was not talking about Chrome or web standards.
I am shocked at the amount of idiot babel in these comments.
Here's how the image tag works:
show me a picture
Your browser downloads the same image file regardless of whether you're on a 1080p desktop display or an iPhone. What picture does is this:
show happyface-large.jpg to big screens but show happyface-small.jpg to small screens
In this case, happyface-large.jpg might be a large image designed to look good in a layout for a large screen, while happyface-small.jpg is the same image, just reduced in pixel dimensions to a size appropriate for a mobile phone. In this case, the difference between these 2 images could be a lot of potential kilobytes that the mobile phone user doesn't in any way need to download to experience the image. With picture, the browser only grabs the image that is designated by the programmer as being the right match for their screen size.
Right now in order to offer the functionality that this *1* tag brings, developers have to jump through all sorts of very gross server side and javascript hoops that add unnecessary resource strain to a site, and I can tell you from much experience that the end result often ends up being "fuck it, let's give them happyface-large.jpg and just scale it down with the viewport." So on your mobile you're looking at huge graphics scaled down to that tiny screen FOR NO REASON. Picture gives every developer an easy way to say, "Ok, here's a smaller image that is appropriate for your screen size."
This will in no way do you any harm. This is a badly needed upgrade to the spec that give browsers CLIENT SIDE ability to show you images that are appropriate for your screen size/shape and pixel density. This will make web pages load faster on your phones and tablets. This will give you fancy hi-res images on that retina screen i-Thing you had to buy.