Yes, You Can Use HTML 5 Today!

Notice: This is a discussion thread for comments about the SitePoint article, Yes, You Can Use HTML 5 Today!.
__________

Please note that one of the illustrations has been incorrectly redrawn; it shows a POST element which doesn't exist; it should be ARTICLE.

I've emailed to ask for it to be redrawn but I guess it's night time for Sitepoint who are Aussies.

bruce (author)

[mattymcg]

Luckily we're workaholics* and committed to being super-responsive ...

Sorry for the error, Bruce, diagram is all fixed now.

*Not really a workaholic, was just checking mail before going to bed and saw this. :-)

[AlexDawson]

I really don't get the article, all it covers is the more generic aspects of HTML5, of course you could do like Google and use HTML5 inline with web applications however for the average web developer, why would you implement a draft specification (as per the article) just to gain a few more semantic tags to structure your content. At the present time it isn't remotely worth the average individual moving across as while you gain some semantics (which arent giving much benefit), you are loosing graceful degredation, which is more important.

Tommy Olsson described it as “an abomination ... it mocks everything I consider important on the Web.”

[cooper.semantics]

The article seems to be another 'what html5 offers' topic

I do like http://www.sitepoint.com/examples/ht...orms-demo.html
the new enhancements to form fields...

Now using html5 anytime soon wouldn't be practical....

Also to note:

<!--[if IE]>
<script>
document.createElement("header");
document.createElement("footer");
document.createElement("nav");
document.createElement("article");
document.createElement("section");
</script>
<![endif]-->

Even though this might make ie behave, the spacing issues for the elements seems to be pretty buggy.

Also, now since there can be multiple h1's on a page, what can dictate the most important heading on a page?

[Stevie D]

Originally Posted by cooper.semantics

I do like http://www.sitepoint.com/examples/ht...orms-demo.html
the new enhancements to form fields...

And the great thing is that the form still works for lesser browsers, even if you have to rely on them typing things in accurately or using some secondary validation.

Also, now since there can be multiple h1's on a page, what can dictate the most important heading on a page?

It depends on how many sections are nested.

section section h1
will be deemed to have a higher priority than
section section section section h1.
So far, so good.

But what about if you are using a mixture of nested sections and h1–h6 elements? What order would the following rank in?

1. section h4
2. section section section h1
3. section h2
4. section section h4
5. section section h1

It would be, most important first: 3, 1, 5, 4, 2
The first thing to look at is the number of section elements nested. The fewer sections, the higher ranking the heading element is. Within each level of sectioning, if there are heading elements of different levels then ranking within those reverts to the traditional practice of low numbers outranking high numbers.

[Chroniclemaster1]

Interesting article! I have to say that I'm not that impressed with HTML5 though. For someone coming more from a development background than a design background, I dumped sloppy HTML4 for XHTML1 a couple years back. Seeing HTML5 come out is like seeing the new 2010 lineup of Yugos. That's great, but it's just not relevant to what I do. Especially with all the things they screwed up in it.

[Karpie]

Yes, you can use HTML5 if you rely on Javascript to make it only semi-functional in the most common browsers around today.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to HTML 4.

[Chroniclemaster1]

It's personal preference, but the "freedom" of HTML (like to close tags... or not ) is counterintuitive to me. XHTML requires much more rigorous structure; it's very logical, and I like it much better for that reason.

The comparison that springs to mind is HTML is the permissive parent that lets you choose to do things one way this time and do it completely differently another. No thank you. When I'm in an art museum I may want to browse at my leisure, but when I'm writing webpages, I want to know the rules.

[Tyssen]

Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1

I dumped sloppy HTML4 for XHTML1 a couple years back.

It's not the language that's sloppy, it's the authors. You can achieve exactly the same strictness with HTML4 as you can with XHTML. The only real differences between the two are the trailing / on self-closing tags and the fact that XHTML's parser is more draconian if you're serving your pages correctly, which you wouldn't do anyway cos IE would choke on it.

Originally Posted by cooper.semantics

<h> would be a much cleaner solution without the specificity headache.

That's what I reckon; no need for a number if you're only ever going to use one hx tag.

[Stevie D]

Originally Posted by Tyssen

That's what I reckon; no need for a number if you're only ever going to use one hx tag.

That depends if you are only ever going to use one hx tag. I can think of plenty of documents where I wouldn't want to keep nesting section elements but would want a hierarchy of headings - retaining the flexibility to use hx elements to denote the structure of the document is useful.

[Chroniclemaster1]

Originally Posted by Tyssen

It's not the language that's sloppy, it's the authors. You can achieve exactly the same strictness with HTML4 as you can with XHTML. The only real differences between the two are the trailing / on self-closing tags and the fact that XHTML's parser is more draconian if you're serving your pages correctly, which you wouldn't do anyway cos IE would choke on it.

And of course no server on the planet actually serves XHTML correctly.

I certainly agree with you about HTML authors, for that matter there are plenty of sloppy XHTML writers too. Which you have to admit is amusing, since in HTML you're at least within the markup specs while in XHTML you're simply writing invalid code.

That's one of the things that's great about HTML though, the flexibility allows people who know nothing about webpages to have a much better chance of writing valid code. HTML is how I started writing webpages, and it's flexibility is probably the single most important feature in "weekend warriors" getting into the internet in the first place. To that extent I know HTML5 is a good thing simply because it means HTML and XHTML will be parallel technologies for years to come. Personally, it bugs me that you "might" close a tags or you "might" not. Once I took up writing Javascripts and then got into programming, HTML doesn't have hard and fast rules like that. I grew to like XHTML better because it has the same guidelines of the other technologies I work with.

...And of course I labor under the completely fruitless hope that one day the W3C will remember us XHTMLers and push for "true" XHTML on the web. Then we can start doing some of the great things they originally sold the web community on for XHTML. Then I'll just have to brush my website into shape and be good to go. One day... *sigh*

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1

And of course no server on the planet actually serves XHTML correctly ..........

Of course you can configure server software to serve XHTML correctly (as defined in the W3C specification) -- or you can do it yourself via server-side scripting (follow the page link in my signature block) -- but then the ouput isn't really viable (as you point out) being unusable by MSIE Browsers.

Also check Producing and serving XHTML 1.0 pages

James

[gary.turner]

Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1

And of course no server on the planet actually serves XHTML correctly.

Not quite true, unless IIS is the only web server on the planet. Oh, wait! It's not. Going beyond what jamesicus said, Apache honors the .xhtml and .xhtm extensions MIME types and delivers documents having either of those extensions with the content type as application/xhtml+xml.

You may also configure Apache to deliver .php, etc. as application/xhtml+xml in either the main configuration, or by using an .htaccess file.

cheers,

gary

[Michael Morris]

HTML 5 needs to be supported or it will never be realized. Microsoft has already effectively killed XHTML as XHTML 2 has been cancelled. They now intend to make sure HTML 5 is stillborn so that Silverlight can gain some footing (even though frankly it's a lost cause). If the web is to be free of properitary BS then HTML 5 must survive.

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by gary.turner

.......... Going beyond what jamesicus said, Apache honors the .xhtml and .xhtm extensions MIME types and delivers documents having either of those extensions with the content type as application/xhtml+xml ...........

And of course you can use htaccess to configure Apache to serve, for instance, .htm extension documents as content type text/html and .html extension documents as application/xhtml+xml.

James

[Stevie D]

Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1

It's personal preference, but the "freedom" of HTML (like to close tags... or not ) is counterintuitive to me. XHTML requires much more rigorous structure; it's very logical, and I like it much better for that reason.

I don't understand this attitude at all (and it doesn't relate to this thread either).

I write HTML to conform to a strict Doctype, and with all tags closed, even when they are optional. The fact that I am being slightly more rigorous than the rules require has no bearing on the matter - I have standards for presentation and layout of code that are not required either, but I stick to them. Who cares? I write the code just as carefully as I would do for XHTML, except that I don't have to worry about the illogical farce of closing spot elements that have no content to close.

But, as I said, that is completely by the by here. HTML5 will have a counterpart XHTML5, which will bring the rigorous but ridiculous regime of XHTML with the fab new facets and features of v5.

[AlexDawson]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of platforms like Flash and Silverlight, sure HTML5 has canvas (which is pretty much a weaker implementation of SVG in my opinion) and sure it has audio and video tags (to embed media - though codec support is going to be a major issue) however HTML is a structural markup language, the inclusion of those tags exists to provide additional semantic meaning, it does not draw away from the need or the point of using plugins to gauge extended functionality.

If you can show me exactly where HTML5 can do bidirectional (this includes streaming) of multimedia, adding interactive vector based animation effects (to the same extent as flash), the ability to manipulate and produce both raster and vector (SVG and canvas can only handle vector that I am aware) and Flash and Silverlights origional and intended purpose... to provide a sandboxed environment for creating interactive multimedia (rather than video where you are stuck with watching without interaction) and rich internet applications which have a structural framework to back them up, then by all means come back to me and say that HTML is an intended replacement. Because as far as I am aware, HTML is not and was never intended for the server and client side interoperability and depth of interaction that Flash and Silverlight can afford in a single environment.

PS: And if you are still not convinced, show me a game you can produce in HTML5 which even compares to the raw ability of Flash or Silverlight.

[Tyssen]

Alex, despite your arguments, Michael Morris isn't the only one talking about HTML5 killing Silverlight & Flash.

[Michael Morris]

Alex, watch and learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aJAaGZIvk

[AlexDawson]

Originally Posted by Michael Morris

Alex, watch and learn.

What exactly am I meant to be learning? I saw the video before you decided to post it, just because other people have a different opinion to me doesn't mean what I have to say is without merit. The fact remains that the HTML5 specification as it stands is not nearly mature or developed to a standard which could compete or take away the reasoning behind using such technologies such as Flash and / or Silverlight.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see HTML5 take a more dynamic approach in improving the web however personally all I have seen is a bunch of hype which ultimately adds up to a half baked language no-one in the web development community in their hounest minds is entirely confident about and I happen to be rather concerned so many people seem to be taking the same approach to HTML5 as they did to XHTML, making it out to be some kind of messiah which ultimately will be misunderstood, well intentioned but ultimately abused beyond recompense like most other languages which have appeared on the web.

[Michael Morris]

HTML and CSS where healthy and growing languages until Microsoft became involved. Their 10 year long stagnation lies entirely at the feat of Balmer and Gates. Before the stagnation occurred though there was a lot of experimentation and pell-mell moving forward. More progress was made with the web from 1995 to 1998 than from 1999 to 2009, and this is very, very sad.

Adobe and Microsoft have a vested interest in the stagnation of the web. Adobe wants to preserve Flash and the huge money they make from its grossly overpriced authoring tools. Microsoft wants to keep the OS relevant - which a dynamic web threatens to undo.

Adobe proved themselves grossly untrustworthy when they made their unilateral decision to change how Flash interacts with Javascript breaking the SWF Upload project and a couple hundred thousand sites tied to it. Now only a fool would trust Adobe not to repeat this behavior. Google's YouTube is dangerously dependent on a thoroughly untrustworthy company's whims - this is the reason they are pushing HTML 5 so hard.

And Microsoft is worse. Frankly, if the W3C members had any guts they would expel Microsoft for its repeated and obnoxious failures in keeping their browsers current. They deserve to have no voice or no role in the future in the web since they have worked as hard as they can to keep it limited for as long as possible.

Silverlight is a poison pill. If Microsoft can push Flash out of the Browser space they can integrate it to IE and then shut down all other browsers to cement their monopoly and lock in as the only provider of browsers that can work. Yes, I know of Moonlight - but Microsoft cannot be trusted not to pull the plug on that project at their earliest convenience.

The second Browser War is starting. I expect HTML 5 to be at the fulcrum of the fight. Remember the bad old days of "this site best viewed in Netscape"? or "this site best viewed in IE"? Well, they're coming back because Microsoft will not adopt a single HTML 5 spec until they have no choice, and when they do they will deliberately do it out of sync with all other browsers. Last time it was Microsoft vs. Netscape. This time it's Microsoft vs. The World.

What it will take is for HTML 5 to reach a point where an application can be built for it and a developer with the balls to take advantage of those features and offer no version of the application for IE.

The web industry is approaching a crossroad where it won't be financially viable to support IE 6 and modern browsers because they will be too different from one another. Businesses that educate their clients to this reality and have them choose between IE 6's limits or a modern website. Businesses that fail to do this will go bankrupt one by one until the only developers remaining are the ones who tell clients that if they want it to work in IE 6 and have all the newest bells and whistles they'll have to pay double. Most clients will balk at this and I'm betting the "keep up with the Jones' " impulse will lead to IE 6 finally being kicked.

HTML 5 is the next step. It is a step towards freedom from proprietary standards and shenanigans. Microsoft killed XHTML. If they kill HTML 5 then I promise you we'll still be coding HTML 4.01 Strict 40 years from now, or HTML will be utterly irrelevant and in it's place will be a Microsoft or Adobe document stack that requires a multi-thousand dollar publisher's kit to create anything for.

I don't think Microsoft will succeed. Windows will never be thrown from the desktop, but the desktop will become irrelevant in the face of PDA's. There is no eternal monopoly. Microsoft unseated IBM by making $30,000 mini-computers irrelevant. Microsoft will become irrelevant under a sea of iPhones and androids. But for this to happen open standards must be pushed and must be embraced.

</rant>

[AlexDawson]

More progress was made with the web from 1995 to 1998 than from 1999 to 2009, and this is very, very sad.

You mean apart from the fact HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, Syndication (Both RSS and Atom), XHTML, SVG and several other languages went final after that period or the expansion away from just IE and Netscape forcing developers to make two versions of a website rather than one that works ubiquitiously across multiple browsers, the idea of expansion of the web through browser plugins, the release of Firefox, the invention of microformats, the rise of social networking never before seen, the genuine implementation of AJAX, the awareness of usability and accessibility never before considered (back in 1998 to any great extent), general popularity of the web amongst normal people, the rise in online e-commerce, the rise of Google as a genuine alternative search engine, etc.

I have no idea exactly what you qualify as progress but that statement is the kind of statement I would not expect from anyone who wished to be taken remotely seriously.

Adobe wants to preserve Flash and the huge money they make from its grossly overpriced authoring tools.

Actually, considering all the statistics show Adobe software is among the most pirated on the web, they may be overprised and they may make lots of money from businesses, but the majority of people based on all the info i've seen shows they download it illegally so its kind of a moot point. That and there are many flash producers now non adobe related which are much cheaper and equally as powerful in many respects for the average user, SWiSHMax being one example.

Adobe proved themselves grossly untrustworthy when they made their unilateral decision to change how Flash interacts with Javascript breaking the SWF Upload project and a couple hundred thousand sites tied to it.

So you would like Adobe take the Microsoft approach? Hinder the progression of a technology to save the developers having to actually put effort into making the required updates to ensure their stuff works, cross platform.

Silverlight is a poison pill. If Microsoft can push Flash out of the Browser space they can integrate it to IE and then shut down all other browsers to cement their monopoly and lock in as the only provider of browsers that can work. Yes, I know of Moonlight - but Microsoft cannot be trusted not to pull the plug on that project at their earliest convenience.

The problem with that arguement is that Silverlight is based on the WPF and .NET platform, which have to remain open in terms of development otherwise developers of software and web apps would be unable to use the API and the language would become redundant. Other then that are you aware that Silverlight makes use of XAML, a completely open standard XML based development language. If Microsoft did what you said it would be like shooting themselves in the foot, they would immediately cripple anyone who wants to make cross platform software using the .NET framework and it would be counterproductive as there is no version of IE that works in such a state for Mac or Linux (now that MS can't bundle IE in europe they would pretty much force all their business customers of visual studio to move to a different language platform, costing them a lot more than browser share).

The second Browser War is starting.

Where have you been? The first browser war was Microsoft VS Netscape... the second browser war is IE VS Firefox + Opera + Safari + Chrome... the third browser war which is starting to kick off is on the mobile platform with Safari + OperaMini + IEMobile + Fennec + SkyFire (etc)

and when they do they will deliberately do it out of sync with all other browsers. Last time it was Microsoft vs. Netscape. This time it's Microsoft vs. The World.

All this Microsoft and Adobe bashing... it gets rather boring after the same conspiracy theories keep resurfacing.

What it will take is for HTML 5 to reach a point where an application can be built for it and a developer with the balls to take advantage of those features and offer no version of the application for IE.

I assume you have never heard of Adobe Air, Google Gears, Titanium etc?

The web industry is approaching a crossroad where it won't be financially viable to support IE 6 and modern browsers because they will be too different from one another.

Actually, as long as there is a majority percentage of people using IE6, it will always be financially viable, to state that differences in browsers will make people stop supporting them shows you seem to have no knowledge whatsoever in the concepts of progressive enhancement or general usability principles.

Businesses that fail to do this will go bankrupt one by one until the only developers remaining are the ones who tell clients that if they want it to work in IE 6 and have all the newest bells and whistles they'll have to pay double.

Actually, if any business started telling their customers that if they wanted their website to work in all common browsers they would have to pay double the rates, the customer would go elsewhere to someone who does understand the concept of good marketing and sensible business practices and it would be you who went bankrupt through lack of customers.

Most clients will balk at this and I'm betting the "keep up with the Jones' " impulse will lead to IE 6 finally being kicked.

Most people who use IE6 have no choice because its in educational institutions or businesses where upgrading browsers would result in heavy expense due to having to rebuild entire intranet infrastructures. All the reports I have seen on IE6 usage shows its nothing todo with people failing to take notice, its due to lack of reasonable options they stay with old browsers like IE6.

but the desktop will become irrelevant in the face of PDA's.

You might want to rethink that, PDA's are old hat, the ranks of iPhones and cellphone technology advances have pretty much laid the majority of the old PDA market into its tombstone.

[SoulScratch]

but the desktop will become irrelevant in the face of PDA's

Really? I would rephrase that

[Jake Arkinstall]

Guys, keep this on topic!

Whilst we all love a good rant, this thread is about the viable use of HTML 5 in today's browser environment. We already have threads about the benefits and issues with HTML 5, so please keep that kind of discussion to those threads.

I'm saying this mainly because all of this is displayed on the comments for the article - whilst in the forum straying from the topic, ranting and arguing is tolerated to an extent, I think we should take some consideration for the article's author .

Off Topic:

Oh, and by the way, the definition of PDA is 'Personal Digital Assistant'. Whilst our common association of PDA is practically a brick with a screen, iPhones and touchscreen smartphones have the features of typical PDAs and more - so you could say that an iPhone is, in fact, a subset of PDA.

[AlexDawson]

arkinstall, definately, I think part of the problem with HTML5 has been the sudden "rush" to try and take it to shelf with the addition of what is currently a draft specification to browsers. I just hope before the working group takes it to the final phases they iron out the kinks in the works (as there is a lot more criticism of HTML5 than any previous incarnation).

PS: While the iPhone may well have features of a PDA I would qualify it more like a mobile computer than a digital assistant