SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 64 of 64
  1. #51
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,088
    Mentioned
    255 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by polyhedra View Post
    i actually noticed exactly that while trying to figure out the <time> tag, that they were considering changing it. So yes, they might change tags by the end, but, they still will be useful in HTML5 right?
    That's the point Ralph is making. Some elements may change before the specification is finished, so until the final version is completed, nobody can answer that question with certainty. Yes, you can use HTML5 with Modernizr, but that relies on Javascript, and you have no control over whether the person using your site has Javascript enabled or not. So why choose a design method that includes so many uncertainties, when HTML4 is fully supported by all modern browsers?

  2. #52
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    when HTML4 is fully supported by all modern browsers?
    ... and can do pretty much 99% of what HTML 5 brings to the table so far as markup is concerned on real world deployment? Usually with less code if you try to use their new structural rules. (which again, seem to exist JUST to placate the nimrods still vomiting up HTML 3.2, slapping a tranny on it, and saying "close enough")

    HTML 5, so far as the actual HTML parts go, offers maybe ONE useful thing for forms, and everything else in the spec is redundant, pointless, adds bloat if you follow the rules (assuming you can even understand the rules -- ASIDE for example) and is most likely the real reason CSS3 and the new javascripted stuff was slapped under it's banner as one all-encompassing monster of a spec... because without them the Emperor has no clothes.

    The only reason I can even think ANYONE would actually support the use of HTML 5 for building websites is to sell more books, video tutorials, podcasts, etc... as there is certainly ZERO benefit in terms of actually building websites over 4.01 Strict and/or XHTML 1.0 Strict! (which you can use CSS3 and the new .js features with anyways)

    Ooh, new, shiny... doesn't necessarily mean better.

  3. #53
    SitePoint Enthusiast polyhedra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    interesting i thought HTML5 would be useful because of tag like <audio> and <video> but technically sure you could use this in a document that is html 4. I find this place to be a good place to get insight on HTML5 because the problem is finding the right information and using it!

  4. #54
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,112
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by polyhedra View Post
    i thought HTML5 would be useful because of tag like <audio> and <video> but technically sure you could use this in a document that is html 4.
    It may be useful one day, but the worry is that browser makers won't agree on single audio/video formats that can be used everywhere. At the moment, it's an embarrassing mess that threatens to sink these elements. There isn't great support for these experimental elements yet anyway.

    The people developing HTML5 want us to move away from the idea of HTML versions, calling it a "living standard". This basically means that you don't need to draw a line in the sand between HTML4 and 5. There's basically HTML, and you can pick and choose elements based on browser support. The only thing to change from your HTML4 documents might be to move to the generic doctype etc.:

    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html lang="en">
    <head>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  5. #55
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    It may be useful one day, but the worry is that browser makers won't agree on single audio/video formats that can be used everywhere. At the moment, it's an embarrassing mess that threatens to sink these elements. There isn't great support for these experimental elements yet anyway.
    People are getting around this by uploading several different video formats, kind of like how people are uploading several different fonts for font-face.

  6. #56
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,112
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sdt76 View Post
    People are getting around this by uploading several different video formats
    Yes indeed, but what a mess. That's not viable long-term, so unless it's sorted, I doubt it will take off.
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  7. #57
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by polyhedra View Post
    interesting i thought HTML5 would be useful because of tag like <audio> and <video>
    Which are redundant to OBJECT and less useful. It's part of what I mean when talking about it undoing the progress of HTML 4. One of the core concepts of HTML 4 was removing not just presentational elements, but redundant ones too. MENU and DIR were pulled as redundant to UL for example.

    In the case of OBJECT, it was intended to replace Applet and the proprietary EMBED and BGSOUND... and eventually it was supposed to even replace IMG... in doing so it allowed file formats to be added when/if better ones came along, so you weren't locked in to any one format for non-html data.

    Now with HTML 5, EMBED is official for no good reason, and VIDEO/AUDIO do nothing more than add more tags for no good reason, and lock you into deploying each browser makers pet codec and container formats... hardcoding it into the browser with no real interface for simply adding new formats as they arrive. It's a zero improvement scenario and just another example of the idiocy that the new spec is.

    ... and before peanut gallery chimes in with "It would be harder to add the new scripting and formats to OBJECT" -- BULLCOOKIES. If a switch/case statement is "too hard" or using a different object constructor is 'tough', there is something fundamentally flawed with the SKILL of the programmers working on it.

    Ogg sucks, WebM is blurry with little to no hardware decode assist, and H.264 is proprietary... oh yes, SUCH an improvement.

  8. #58
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,112
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Ogg sucks, WebM is blurry with little to no hardware decode assist, and H.264 is proprietary... oh yes, SUCH an improvement.
    Is there anything better than could or should be used?
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  9. #59
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Yes indeed, but what a mess. That's not viable long-term, so unless it's sorted, I doubt it will take off.
    It's certainly not viable for any business serious about video communication, where volume is the key. Yeah, it's a problem because the vendors all have such strong opinions that it makes standardization such a pain, but what is new, right?

  10. #60
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Now with HTML 5, EMBED is official for no good reason, and VIDEO/AUDIO do nothing more than add more tags for no good reason, and lock you into deploying each browser makers pet codec and container formats... hardcoding it into the browser with no real interface for simply adding new formats as they arrive.
    Embed is in the specs because the HTML5 spec doesn't PROSCRIBE as much as it DESCRIBES. Like, you know, the dictionary's got "ain't" in it because people use it, not because we should be using it? HTML5 specs were designed to describe and be written to what browsers understand today in addition to adding shiny new junk. This was partially because they needed to write a new parser with unified error rendering and this meant needing to look up, document, and rewrite how browsers parsed HTML(4).

    The point of <audio> and <video> is to do for <object> what <header> does for <div>. <object> is meaningless: all you know is, you're calling some Joe Random File. That's it.
    (and yes, today <audio>, <video> and <header> are also meaningless to user agents and software. What's new)

    The HTML does not hard-encode jack for formats. Instead, they left it out entirely. Like they did with <img>. You're only writing 500 video formats because browser vendors are being jokers. It actually has little to do with HTML. It's all about retards doing the kangaroo boxing about patents and other crap that should die horribly in a fire.

    <object> doesn't save you from that crap. You want your video to be seen by as many people as possible? You're still making 500 different encodings anyway. Or tell everyone they have to have Flash player even though it sucks accessibility balls 99% of the time and Adobe hates Linux with the passion of a pizzeria owner killing the cockroaches in his kitchen.

    People, you want to use HTML5? Go use it. Just don't be stupid and use something that might actually be useful cause there's a good chance Hixie will wake up some morning and decide it smells and should be thrown out or something. Treat the unstable spec as it is: unstable. You want to sell that stuff to clients?? Be 100% prepared to rewrite it a few months later, cause oh noes! the spec has changed (like the people in the comments here did when they decided to use the DRAFT SPEC WebSQL for production code). Oh and you'll rewrite it for free, or you're ripping your client off. We don't go to the car lot and expect experimental cars do we? No.

    Am I using some HTML5? Yes. But I've never been accused of being smart. I have all the rope I need to hang myself. Joys.

  11. #61
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    HTML5 specs were designed to describe and be written to what browsers understand today in addition to adding shiny new junk.
    Which is most of what's wrong with it... since at that point it is no longer a specification, so much as a "do whatever the hell you like, who cares".

    Which is no way to build code... Which is why we need to STOP having people advocate it, stand the hell up and tell the W3C and more specifically the WhatWG to turn HTML 5 sideways, shine it up real nice... and stick it straight up...

    It's nonsense like this which makes those benevolent dictators sound like a good idea.

  12. #62
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It's nonsense like this which makes those benevolent dictators sound like a good idea.
    Uh, what do you think Hixie is?

  13. #63
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Uh, what do you think Hixie is?
    A naive idealist looking to perpetuate any efforts at web standards effectively ending up toothless?

  14. #64
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    naive idealist
    I could see both of those


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •