Slashdot Mirror
HTML5: It's Already Everywhere, Even In Mobile
electronic convict writes: Tom Dale has never been shy, and in a Q&A with Matt Asay on ReadWrite, the EmberJS co-founder and JavaScript evangelist makes the outspoken claim that open Web technologies are already everywhere, even in native mobile apps, and that it's only a matter of time before they catch up to "all the capabilities of a native, proprietary platform." Take that, Web-is-dead doomsayers.
Dale has plenty more to say, calling Google an "adolescent behemoth" that's belatedly embracing open-Web technologies in mobile, lauding Apple's Nitro JS engine and belittling the idea that Web apps have to look and feel the same as native apps for the open Web to triumph. His bottom line: "[I]t's not hard to see that the future of the Web on mobile is a happy one."
Dale has plenty more to say, calling Google an "adolescent behemoth" that's belatedly embracing open-Web technologies in mobile, lauding Apple's Nitro JS engine and belittling the idea that Web apps have to look and feel the same as native apps for the open Web to triumph. His bottom line: "[I]t's not hard to see that the future of the Web on mobile is a happy one."
My understanding is that it is still just HTML, but the way some people describe it, it sounds like the second coming of C.
Sorry that should be HTML5 in the title not HTML.
My understanding is that it is still just HTML, but the way some people describe it, it sounds like the second coming of C.
It's certainly a lot easier to do cross-platform user interfaces in HTML5 than it is in C.
It's less secure than its predecessors, allowing you to do more with it than you could before.
That sounds like a troll, but it's not. A lot of what's billed as innovation in this sphere was thought of by many people before, but the platform was intentionally designed to make it impossible for security reasons.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Let me tell a joke. Apple in the Enterprise.
You know whats "go great." You just like being a contrarian little pudknocker.
It's basically just a bunch of new features that are wrapped up into a bundle with the label "version 5" slapped on it. It's usually accompanied by CSS3, which adds new features for styling stuff.
There are two reasons people like HTML5, in my experience. Firstly, the canvas element lets you do arbitrary drawing with javascript, opening up a large range of applications for pure-HTML that used to rely on stuff like Flash or Applets (most notably games). Secondly, HTML5 does a lot of stuff natively, that used to have to be added (somewhat hackishly) by javascript and UI libraries - form validation, colour pickers, date selectors. When you add CSS3 into the mix, you can make quite rich UIs with very little (if any) use of javascript.
Basically, HTML5 will let us retire a whole bunch of crufty old legacy hacks from the bad days (Javascript everywhere, Flash, Applets, etc)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
HTML5 introduces several useful features which were poorly implemented with shims in HTML. Example: Canvas element now allows for graphics without a plugin. New input types will _lessen_ the need for Javascript datepickers, field type validation. HTML allows for offline application and data so you can launch web applications offline.
All of this depends on browser support though. Input types are not universally implemented or even clearly specified as to their behavior in specifications. Canvas element glitter depends on Javascript for anything useful which then depends on the underlying speed of the Javascript VM / compiler.
So in short, it is all transitional until you can depend on 100% browser support. There are HTML5 polyfills out there, but they are not at 100%.
n/m
but... operation is not even remotely smooth enough to compete with apps running with native graphics libraries. On Apple or Android. Still too sludgy, the browser implementation still does not implement sufficient concurrency to make it work well.
-Matt
because you can make amazing websites like zombocom
If they would just have based ECMA4 on Actionscript and stuck with it, we would have had all the things we're still missing in javascript long ago. All this complaining about "proprietary" platforms is just depressing. When people complain about the need for plugin player with flash etc. and how Javascript is so much better since you don't need external players I mentally mark them down as idiots. The only difference between Flash and Javascript from running perspective is that every browser has included the Javascript runtime in the form of Javascript parser, if Flash were included in the same way (especially now that it's an open format) there would be zero differences between these two, except that you could use an actually sane programming language instead of one that lacks consistency and has all the hallmarks of homebrew script language.
with it's payed developer program.
Why they h*ll do we need to pay $75 bucks to be able to put some stuff on our phone that we own.
Although HTML5 might be everywhere, the state of the current cross device development platforms is horrendous.
Platforms like Sencha and all the other commercial platforms should make it so much easier to make something cross device but reality is a b*tch.
It wasn't that a lot of these things couldn't be done before, it was that non-realtime media, non-interactive media, and scripted pseudo-interactive media (cgi scripts) should not all be lumped together.
But now all that has been thrown aside and every day one has to wonder just what trick you have no way of auditing is going to pop up in your browser today, be it mundane or nefarious.
How many times has it been pronounced dead ?
Analog modems ?
Tubes ?
AM Radio ?
Canvas alone will not replace flash, silverlight, applets, etc. The next steps are:
* Compiled javascript
* Some sort of same UI framework which allows for:
a. reasonably sophisticated UI creation in a declarative language (HTML still lags far behind in this arena)
b. behavioral development in a clean code behind strategy
* reasonable ways to modularize both source code and runtime code
* lots of other things I am too lazy to list
In other words, you need flash/flex or silverlight except without all the shit and baggage those came with.
My understanding is that it is still just HTML, but the way some people describe it, it sounds like the second coming of C.
It's certainly a lot easier to do cross-platform user interfaces in HTML5 than it is in C.
That's true in any language that includes a UI library, simply because C does not include one.
UI-aside, C is a lot more portable than HTML5 is.
You don't really need "compiled javascript" with the new javascript engines underneath modern browsers. They're optimizing that code for you.
Angular and knockout extend the declarative capabilities of HTML, allowing you to specify controls very simply and power their behavior through javascript.
Javascript already can work as a "code behind" by including the script.
RequireJS and built in features of javascript allow for modularizing your code already.
I guess you're right, canvas itself doesn't do anything, but I wouldn't call any of these things "next steps" they're more "current or recent past steps".
but the platform was intentionally designed to make it impossible for security reasons.
Perhaps thats true for some technologies, but as user agents didn't add those features to the web, all of those shiny features landed in flash or silverlight and ended up being less secure and more broken than before. Soon every website told you to install flash because it was so new and so cool.
So browser vendors had the choice: either add the features to the browsers themselfes, or rely on one company (Adobe, silverlight came later) and their "Browser inside a Browser".
Of course HTML5 is less secure, and especially WebGL allows the web (traditionally a very dangerous place) to access the graphics card without a dense safety net. But otherwise you would have unity web player or other technologies, which are basically punching holes exactly there where you build your safety net.
HTML5 isn't less secure because people wanted it to be less secure. They wanted to obsolete plugins, but still meet the Web's users demands. Do you have flash installed?
"Already"? HTML5 has been around for a really long time. Web devs who try to desperately hold onto flash have been losing clients for years.
Unless, of course, this article was meant to draw attention to Tom Dale (because obviously he needs more attention), and two shitty articles about idiots thinking that web is dead. If that's the case, carry on.
You mention a bunch of third party libraries that are not actually part of HTML5. They're all are bolt on hacks that do nothing but cludge up your environment. AMD in particular is a nasty hack with huge drawbacks (namely trying to act as half a compiler in order to allow decent file organization and decent runtime performance).
All are good things to work on, but to claim the problems they are trying to solve are "in the past" is simply not true.
That all mankind will one day praise and testify.
IT HAS RISEN!
For example, the article on readwriteweb does nothing if Javashit is disabled, yet it's just a static piece of text with some images and could have been just as effectively rendered in HTML 3.0 like any other motherfuckingwebsite.com.
Sad thing is, HTML 3.0 is more responsive than most of the shit I see today. HTML 3.0 used to just wrap words at the end of the screen or the window, no matter what the "designer" wanted. Now, when the "designer" wants a 6-inch minimum width, the text is unreadable on mobile unless you're willing to scroll back and forth for EVERY FUCKING LINE OF TEXT. And when the "designer" wants a 500-pixel maximum width,
the website
looks like this
on the
desktop.
Fuck web design. Fuck web designers. And increasingly, fuck the web.
They're not really bolted on hacks, they're just JavaScript. Take for example what Angular and Knockout do. They use JavaScript to analyze the DOM, apply CSS3 styles and manipulate properties of the items in the DOM and provide hooks for custom behavior. How is that any different from any UI library or any coding framework? How is that a hack? It's taking advantage of the languages and APIs provided for these exact purposes.
RequireJS and AMD is not something I particularly care for, I tend to encapsulate my logic with closures, taking advantage of scoping and being organized.
Compiled JavaScript, you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
UI-aside, C is a lot more portable than HTML5 is.
Sure if you're writing embedded applications, backend server programs or scientific computing applications HTML5 is probably not the best choice but if you're talking end-user facing programs then it's going to be portable across all the major (and most of the minor) platforms.
The real problem is that people *want* to see creative, aesthetically pleasing and different designs when browsing the web.
You're right though, It's those fucking web designers. It's a conspiracy. They should all just stick to black-on-white 12pt Times New Roman instead.
When you have a fundamentally unsuitable base structure (i.e the DOM) for what you want to do (rich internet applications), the things you implement to try to make it sane are indeed hacks.
No that's basically it.
Long story short, HTML5 came about around the same time as the rise of hipsters, the type of people who produce crappy little "artsy" indie games that we're supposed to give a toss about but don't because they're crap, you know the type of person I'm talking about, people like Phil Fish.
So all these people that really don't have much of a clue about technology but can now "create" think it's a magical new thing, something incredible and amazing.
But in reality anyone with any degree of technical competence recognises HTML5 for what it is- it's one step forward, and two steps back, parts of the spec are just outright broken, the semantic tags being a prime example. The set of semantic tags is so small and already outdated and the description so ambiguous and explanations from the spec writers so contradictory amongst even themselves that people use them in different ways meaning it's anyone's guess what their semantics actually are in practice- you can ascertain no more information about the content contained within than you could when everything was a div with a genuinely descriptive id or class.
You've now basically got all the crap you had with Flash as standard but without being able to disable the plugin to kill it and with even worse performance and less accessibility.
So yes the HTML5 fanboys who are mostly non-technical hipsters may call it the second coming of C, but if you instead view it as the second coming of the AOL homepage it makes far more sense.
I don't have to download your shitty app, which means I don't have to use your shitty app store, which means I don't have to have your shitty app invade my privacy, which means I don't have to use your shitty OS which also spies on me or locks me down and treats me like I'm technologically illiterate.
This is what's so great about HTML 5.
Multimedia support, and ability to make web pages act like applications without the need for java or flash.
SVG has been around longer than canvas. Why are web programmers more excited about canvas?
HTML (4 and earlier) was a messy complicated variant of SGML that nobody really understood and which had no compliant implementations whatsoever, but all browsers supported it well enough for day-to-day use.
To a degree it was replaced by XHTML, which was well-understood and properly implemented across browsers, but had some practical problems for some (the requirement to load a DOM fully before even beginner to render, and the strictness of the syntax and harsh failure mode were not always considered appropriate). It was nice in a lot of ways, though, but interest petered off when work on the next version, XHTML2, went off the tracks pursuing the ultimate meta-language and unfortunately never got anywhere.
A group got tired of waiting for XHTML2 and designed a new HTML-like markup language based not upon SGML or previous versions of HTML, but upon how HTML is actually used in practice. It's smaller, simpler and easier to understand and maintain than HTML ever was, and when XHTML2 was cancelled they incorporated some of the good ideas from there too.
So for years we had a rather nice markup language that web developers were looking forward to using, but couldn't because there wasn't much support for it in browsers. The point of this article is to point out that right now it's been widely supported for a while already, and it's time to start using it for all sorts of things.
So.. if you are writing for the personal computer something that the user has to see graphically HTML beats C hands down? Utilising a whole software stack that's mostly written in C ,-D
I see two web's developing. A mobile side which totally abandoned plugins long ago and embraced HTML5 and the real web or maybe a better word is classic web.
Which still embraces Flash content, Java and Silverlight. All of which leave a user open for more malware and frequent updating of those pesky plugins.
Steve Jobs was wrong on some things, but dumping Flash was not one of them. He was spot on when it came to saying Flash needs to go. I read a few days ago about what users can do to protect their PC's and Mac's better. Of course the canned response is always add more security. But in reality for most users the main threat is their web browser and not their PC or Mac. HTML5 should be far more advanced into the classic web then it is now. Simply because of the mobile web push
into that compliance. Why is it that web developers see mobile as a new frontier, but leave PC users in the old days of plugins?
So.. if you are writing for the personal computer something that the user has to see graphically HTML beats C hands down?
Not necessarily.
Utilising a whole software stack that's mostly written in C ,-D
Yes, most higher level languages run on platforms written in C, that doesn't mean C is the perfect language for everything.
We instead need to run your shitty app from your shitty server with a bunch of NSA mitm attacks intercepting all the data.
go back to bbs and mailing lists.
The base structure is fine for this purpose. It seems more and more like you've not tried using some of the new tools. If you had, and still didn't approve, you'd at least be able to coherently point out short-comings instead of throwing a tantrum...
So a base structure designed with laying out a static document is a "fine structure" for building an interactive application eh?
Back in the good old days. We had a data format that was in essence a memory dump of the system. So the data will only work with one application and sometimes on the same OS and hardware (Endianness).
Then we started to get some open format solutions such as Postscript, LaTex which allowed for cross platform and software sharing of data. HTML got popular mostly due to it compatibility with flat text. Simple commands and the fact that you could link to an other document. This linking feature ment you could dig further in a document.
They added more features including images more formatting then JavaScript was a bit of a hack added in for client side processing.
So now we have apps that we access online and we really don't care if you are using windows, macs, tablets, phones, or plan9. The browser follows the standard and gives you the output.
Java was an attempt at this concept too, hovever many apps that we call webpages today would be too much work to code in Java.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You need solid code.
Of course HTML5 is less secure, and especially WebGL allows the web (traditionally a very dangerous place) to access the graphics card without a dense safety net
Doesn't sound exactly true anymore now that chips like Kaveri basically allow you to run graphics code on top of the virtual memory circuitry.
Ezekiel 23:20
Unless you give specific examples you still sound like a troll.
What's the negative security implications of the Canvas tag? Local (sandboxed) storage? Video tag?
Fair point, but it only applies for applications which don't inherently require Internet communication.
Right, because they can't just buy the info from the app owner like everyone else does.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Well that is all and good but IE does not support any of the new input types, the new minimum browser supported for most people is now IE9, which does have canvas and SVG, but is missing a bunch of stuff like input types and CSS gradients. IE9 is the new IE6 and is here to stay for many years.
Sure that may be the case with what HTML 3.0 was designed for, but remember how people actually used it?
Designers wanted their minimum width columns so there were tables inside tables everywhere!
Also, it comes with MAFIAA approved DRM baked into the protocol, yah oppression!
A lot of HTML limitations is also due to the fact that it will need to render on many different platforms. The goal for a correct web app is not to copy your PC app, but stay in the browsers rules and limitations.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You must be new to the world of programming -- old technology never dies! MWA HA HA HA!!!
Hate Flash? All the people who talk like HTML5 is the second coming of C do too. Silverlight? Same thing.
While it is still html5, there's a lot that used to rely on plugins that doesn't, which has a lot to do with why on mobile platforms with outdated or no Flash support, it's actually taken off FASTER than it has on the desktop (regardless of how poorly written the title is). Youtube has a flashless version (www.youtube.com/html5), and a good number of others that have always required flash do as well, either through a separate url as with youtube, or based on user-agent string.
Sounds like less than earth shattering if you're on Windows where Adobe at least still provides native support, but to the rest of the world, having functionality as well as stability (wine-pipelight will give you the latest Windows flash on Linux, but in my experience, it tends to crash often).
The conspiracy is someone let all those AOL users out of their corral. We need a roundup soon. Where's Cowboy Neal when you need him?
Depends what you do though. Making a mass market customer facing e-commerce website? Yeah, IE9's probably your minimum. Maybe even IE8 for some cases.
Making an internal portal? You probably can go IE11.
Mac-only shop? You can even drop IE now and just go safari/chrome/firefox.
Not as lucky, but you have a dashboard for a marketing or HR system? You probably can mandate IE10 and up. Any company who cannot accommodate that will be stuck on SAP and Oracle anyway.
Making a desktop app with HTML5 stuff? Well, you're on node-webkit, and can use anything but the most bleeding edge.
So you have a LOT of scenarios where all the new stuff can be used.
Yes, the capabilities of browser-based apps will catch up to the desktop very soon now. We've been hearing that for a decade, and yet the browser UI toolkits are still incredibly buggy, not consistent across platforms, with many parts just flat-out poorly designed. Getting the UI of any non-trivial web app working correctly across the 5 major browsers is a fucking nightmare. But ANY DAY NOW all the problems will magically disappear-- that's a ridiculous claim, but what is worse, is all the people claiming all the problems have already been solved.
My understanding is that it is still just HTML, but the way some people describe it, it sounds like the second coming of C.
It is the next coming of C.
The moment the portable devices became web capable - and the web back then already was where most people spent their time when computing - was when the iPhone was introduced. A full-blown non-sucking modern browser on a fully mobile pocket device that the entire world wanted. That was a first. And Steve Jobs said: No,it won't run flash or any other VM. Period.
This eventually killed Flash and pushed *everyone* in the rich client field back to Ajax, HTML and CSS. At the same time browsers became more performant, Google open sourced their acqired V8 engine and moved every thinkable app into the cloud.
FFW to today, 7 years Anno iPhone, and we have a bazillion online devices (classic Desktops, laptops, netbooks/ultrabooks, tablets and smartphones) with nothing but am HTML5 browser that runs JavaScript in common. Google will defend the(ir) web with all their might and they plan to bring the second half of humanity online - with the help of Huawei, Xiaoming and friends. And they're already doing it with a notable pace.
And the devices doing this are so powerfull, they'd run circles around an 80ies liquid nitro cooled Supercomputer. Hence rich clients in pure open standard web technologies is where *everything* that matters in utility and end-user computing today happens. That's a simple fact. Performance be damned, we have 4-8 cores running at 1.x Ghz on even the cheapest of mobile devices. So, yeah, every advancement in the field is a big deal. Web Components, for instance, are a huge step forward. (Google for "Polymer")
And why are web based rich client apps such a big deal, you ask?
From the top of my head:
No deployment, continuous integration, port 80 is always open, no fussing with customers inhouse IT, runs on everything that runs on electricity and has a screen with zero porting. And probably then some reasons.
(Sidenote: That's why we today even have tons of SCADA equipment that runs mission-critical stuff accesible to every highschool kid who can dig up the default password.)
Bottom line:
You got it just right: The web and HTML5 centric frontends actually are the next coming of C.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Don't get me wrong, the new stuff is great, but it will take years before we can take them for granted.
Because most web programmers are retards with goldfish level awareness of the past and don't realize they're trying to reinvent the wheel, only this time with more square. But it's asynchronous (aka cooperative multitasking) so that makes it better, somehow.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
it's like twitter vs blogging. twitter is better than blogging because not reading your tweet is more efficient than not reading your blog.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
All HTML5 does is open the web to new abilities and devices. Just because there are more people writing shitty web software today then back in the day doesn't mean the fault lays at HTML5's feet. There are more shitty native apps too. Rose-colored glasses are easy to hide behind, but they simply don't stack up to reality when you look past them. Today I can use a browser to do things that would have required a hodge-podge of horribly fragile native apps, and I can target it for a wider audience with less effort. Less capable developers would still be making less "responsive" and crappy web sites today, even if that meant they had to use Flash instead of HTML3.
Nonsense. It's more than just UI concerns; audio, video, networking.. the list goes on. Plus, theoretical portability is always trumped by actual deployed-and-tested portability. You try writing a useful user application in C in less time and with fewer bugs than the equivalent HTML5 app, and have it target as many devices. Deploying a 40k HTML5 app is a damn sight better than spinning your wheels to create a plethora of native binaries.
What's the negative security implications of the Canvas tag?
It depends on what you mean by "security".
I cannot use to access your local files.
But I can use it to do bitcoin mining on your GPU.
Fantastic!
Yeah, well, you go write an enterprise level application using modal windows and IFRAMES to do your AJAX calls, then see how impressed you are when people talk about how "innovative" web apps are.
HTML5 is really about pushing pervasive DRM.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Seeing as it has nothing to do with static documents, yeah - It's fine. You really do sound upset. Did HTML5 touch you inappropriately or something? Hint: Because a document can be static doesn't mean it has to always be static. The DOM is perfectly capable of being modified at runtime, and as AngularJS and other frameworks show, is capable of being utilised in some incredibly well-thought-out ways, making rapid (and sane) web-based app development possible. Or I guess you're right and that simply isn't the case... Muppet.
SVG relies on markup, whereas Canvas is entirely code-oriented. SVG is also vector based (hence the name), and Canvas is raster based, which lend them to different things. Canvas also has 3D support, which SVG does not have. Of course people like slashdice assume there is no difference and will use that as ammunition to "take on" HTML5 and try to seem quietly versed on the subject, but their missing knowledge just highlights that their argument isn't from a position of understanding, but a reaction to something else - maybe just not understanding it? I don't know, it's weird.
And when the "designer" wants a 500-pixel maximum width,
the website
looks like this
on the
desktop.
500px for body at a "normal" font size (16px) is 31em. Studies show that column widths wider than about 40em (80 columns) make text harder for most people to read because they end up skipping or repeating lines.
Also, it comes with MAFIAA approved DRM baked into the protocol, yah oppression!
Also, it comes with hooks that allow displaying media while discouraging copyright infringement, yay content availability!
FTFY
Translation: "I have no idea, but I value my own opinion (even if based on nothing), so here it is! Let me reveal my ignorance to you all! I somehow think this is something to be proud of!"
Hipster kids who don't know shit about technology.
Fuck the web.... written on a website :)
Parent's exactly right.... HTML5 is significant because it's an application development platform that runs almost everywhere. Yes, there are a lot of problems with standardization, security, semantics, etc., as others in this thread have pointed out, but none of this answers the question posed by OP... you can publish an HTML5 application today and it's instantly available to be run on hundreds of millions of phones, tablets, and PC's worldwide. That's a killer feature that no other development platform provides. (No, JWS doesn't count.)
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
I can tell you what was great about HTML 2. You didn't have a bunch of annoying shit going on in a web page.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
C and C++ are compiled for a particular instruction set and linked for a particular platform. When a developer has to reach to reach users on a dozen different platforms, some of which have onerous developer qualifications, it's more efficient for a developer to target a compatibility layer implemented in C or in C++.
The real problem is that people *want* to see creative, aesthetically pleasing and different designs when browsing the web.
Speak for yourself. When I browse the web I want different types of information.
HTML 5 is just a buzz word for the interoperability of multiple technologies. However most people (the non-techies) are ignorant to this fact and automatically assume it refers to HTML and thus are often taken advantage of by people claiming to 'know' HTML 5 when in fact, they don't know jack.
You don't really need "compiled javascript" with the new javascript engines underneath modern browsers.
You do if you want to hinder third parties from analyzing it.
IE9 is the new IE6 and is here to stay for many years.
"Many" here means just under two and a half. Security updates for Windows Vista end in April 11, 2017, and all versions of desktop Windows newer than Windows Vista support IE 10 or later. And unless you have a substantial audience actually using IE on Windows Vista, you can probably provide a "gracefully degraded" experience for IE 9 and recommend Firefox for the full experience.
Why do I have the sudden urge to stand on the sidewalk in front of this guy's house with my toe poised half an inch above his grass?
Youtube has a flashless version (www.youtube.com/html5)
With a lot of the video selection missing, as far as I can tell. Or has the situation changed substantially since January 2013 when a bunch of videos were missing from the HTML5 version of YouTube?
There is nothing great about HTML. There is really nothing great about almost any modern web language/platform.
We've been solving the same problem for the past 20+ years.
It's all just an API
Print text, drawing graphics, networking api, database api.
The issue has never been about anything great, but about somehow getting this API to be supported and adopted across all devices/platforms.
Heck, if we all used Windows, the whole web could have just been activeX controls and we'd have all had the same API as windows desktop programming. Or QT, TCL, Java applets, or any other language/platform.
So yes, absolutely nothing great about HTML5. Whatever it supports has been available in the past on other platforms.
But WHAT IS GREAT, is most major browsers and mobile platforms now agree to support HTML5 by in large and have kept it relatively speaking, up to date. So we can add more APIS (database, caching, graphics rendering...) to HTML5 and away we go.
In a way, it is the second coming of C, because no matter what platform you have, C will probably be supported :P
But spinning sh$t is not ADA compliant and will get us sued.
Table-ized A.I.
Back in the good old days. We had a data format that was in essence a memory dump of the system
You mean .doc?
That's like comparing apples to peacocks.
Table-ized A.I.
Hipsters ruin everything they touch.
The worst thing to come out of "Geek Chic" is pretentious trendies masquerading as True Geeks.
News flash: being uncool isn't cool. No, Huey, it's NOT hip to be square.
The canvas tag can be used to uniquely identify you across sessions, regardless of cookie settings.
Please hand in your CompSci card. There is noise coming from your mouth that will make people who have no clue believe what you say, yet those who know what they are doing will know you're just a fraud who has no clue.
Well I'll tell you, from the perspective of someone who managed a development team, what the big deal is. It's managing information overload.
Suppose you're maintaining an Android App. No problem, you just need to know Java and the Android SDK, which is very well thought out and amazingly easy to use. Oh, but now we need a server tier to our system. Well, you could learn PHP, but to keep things simple you stick with Java and go Java EE, which is not so hard to learn these days. You decide to use a RESTful interface, which Java EE supports well, so you don't have to learn the ins and outs of Servlets. Now management says you've got to run on the iPad and Blackberry as well, so you learn IOS and QNX -- I'm assuming you're a genius, so it's not that hard for you. Oh, and there should be a web interface for desktops. You could learn Java Server Faces, but you really need to learn HTML to do that anyway, and you have that nicely thought out RESTful interface, so you decide to go with HTML and jQuery or Dojo so you can serve up a slick Rich Internet Application experience. You also need to master several different application frameworks to provide things like mapping on each end user platform. But it's no problem for you, you're a genius.
Fine, but now think about what it would take to hire your replacement to maintain your software.
I once worked for a small app developer that over some years developed an app that looked a lot like what I've described above, although the specific technologies were somewhat different. The fact that the project had accreted so many dependencies didn't faze any of the five of us who worked on it. All of us either had advanced degrees in CS or more than ten years of experience in the field. We were very successful for our application domain so a larger company bought us out. But even though they'd spent millions of dollars to acquire the product they gave up on it within three years. It wasn't because of competition -- there was none. It wasn't because customers didn't want to buy the software -- they did. The problem was the new owner was never able to assemble a team that could master all the technologies needed to maintain and support the system.
People have been trying to use HTML as an application platform almost since it came out. The first CGI specification came out something like twenty years ago. HTML5 is a recognition that HTML plus Javascript is an application platform, and the W3C put in a bunch of stuff like offline local storage that recognizes this.
This doesn't make HTML5 the ideal platform for writing Android, iOS, QNX or Windows applications. But if you had to target two or three platforms that coincidentally support HTML5, it's certainly worth considering these days.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Because most web programmers are retards with goldfish level awareness of the past and don't realize they're trying to reinvent the wheel
No, SVG and canvas are fundamentally different.
SVG is vector-based where canvas is raster-based, SVG elements end up in the DOM which is slower but allows you to do things like attach event handlers, canvas is essentially a bitmap so you're manipulating it at the pixel level which makes it faster but you cannot deal with parts of it at an 'element' level.
Having a bitmap target allows for things like WebGL as well, how would you do WebGL if you only had SVG but not canvas? But it does have drawbacks with not being in the DOM such that you cannot rely on the browser for automatic re-layout, you need to handle that yourself.
They are two different technologies for different sets of problems, there is some minimal overlap but it certainly is not any "reinventing of the wheel".
By "retire" I mean "not use anymore". Of course, we'll still be stuck supporting the legacy crap for decades to come. Much as we'll be stuck supporting HTML5 when the new shiny comes over the horizon.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
you're just a fraud who has no clue
And you're just a heckler who has no evidence.
Also, it comes with MAFIAA approved DRM baked into the protocol
Wrong. It comes with a specification that dictates how an external DRM module needs to work, the alternative is to exclude DRM content completely and most people do not want to do that. You could remove that ability from Firefox or Chromium if you wanted to.
yah oppression!
They are enforcing the law of copyright, if you dont like copyright then direct your attention at repealing the law not those enforcing it.
You are angry because modern developers have tools to easily accomplish what was awkward and difficult for you. That is one hundred percent your problem and your failing.
HTML5 isn't less secure because people wanted it to be less secure. They wanted to obsolete plugins, but still meet the Web's users demands. Do you have flash installed?
Are you saying I can disable HTML5, or, change a setting so I have to specifically click for HTML5 to be displayed?
If you aren't saying that, I think you kind of disproved your own point.
> No, SVG and canvas are fundamentally different. SVG is vector-based where canvas is raster-based
Yep. I remember it from the first time around, when it was called PostScript and Turtle Graphics!
In firefox, you have various options to disable parts of HTML5: ...
webgl.disabled: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
network.websocket.enabled
full-screen-api.enabled
And if there is demand to disable HTML5 for certain websites on a click-to-play basis, either somebody will write an addon or the browser does it already itself. For example getusermedia asks for your permission before giving access to the camera.
It puts porn onto iPads, and that makes Steve Jobs cry in his grave. Do we need another upside?
According to Khronos, those issues have been addressed and the possibility of DOS attacks is the only serious remaining issue.
https://www.khronos.org/webgl/security/
I can tell you what was great about HTML 2. You didn't have a bunch of annoying shit going on in a web page.
Apart from BLINK-tags and animated GIFs in neon colors.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Fair enough, but those weren't part of the HTML 2 standard, they were Netscape's doing.
You don't know anything about me, or how I feel.
Intelligent people tolerate the uncomfortable feeling of ignorance, while stupid people fill the gaps with whatever ridiculous crap pops into their tiny little brains.
Your refusal to acknowledge your own ignorance telegraphs the latter. Might want to do something about that.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Yes, I do know how you feel, because you told me (along with the rest of the world).
The fact that you did so unintentionally doesn't change that.