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.
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!
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">
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.
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).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.
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.
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.
Uh, what do you think Hixie is?It's nonsense like this which makes those benevolent dictators sound like a good idea.
I could see both of thosenaive idealist