[Core]

Yesterday, an official from W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) - the organization that handles web standards, stated that

Quote

The problem we're facing right now is there is already a lot of excitement for HTML5, but it's a little too early to deploy it because we're running into interoperability issues...

So much about the excitement for HTML5 to replace Silverlight and Flash (even though it won't really be one due to architecture constraints).

Sources: InfoWorld | Mashable

[Brewer]

Well, I will admit, I am surprised. I haven't been following HTML5 development, so I was unaware that it wasn't already completely released.

[skybomb0]

I haven't really been following the development of HTML5, but the support of HTML5 by browsers like Firefox. I thought HTML5 was nearing its official release date, but I guess I should follow a little more closely.

[drhowarddrfine]

Core, on 07 October 2010 - 09:38 AM, said:

So much about the excitement for HTML5 to replace Silverlight and Flash (even though it won't really be one due to architecture constraints).

The guy you quote says HTML5 will replace Flash over time.

I think his point is that you have to be careful, particularly with large organizations where code tends to stick around for decades without changing. The HTML5 spec is not finished but parts of it are pretty solid. As he said, the biggest problem is with IE as things always are, but I'm never one who would tell you to dumb down your site for dumb IE cause you'll never get anywhere if you wait for IE to catch up to things. That's why it's lost nearly half its market share over the last 6 years.

Also, with that mindset, CSS2.1 would only have been used a couple years ago since that's when it was finalized. Standards are based on implementations, not invention by the committee. Some part of all the things used in HTML5 work in at least one browser somewhere. Two implementations finalize the spec.

Meanwhile, all the output of my company is HTML5 and CSS3 and we have no issues whatsoever save for IE, of course, where javascript 'shims' are needed to fix it.

This post has been edited by drhowarddrfine: 08 October 2010 - 01:55 AM

[ladyinblack]

Word is HTML 5 works on IE9. I didn't have the opportunity to try it though. I didn't know the it wasn't ready, seems to work fine when I use it with Google Chrome.

[CTphpnwb]

Quote

...He cited Microsoft's IE6 browser as an example of popular client not supporting the standard. "IE6 is still being used on the Web today, and it is 10 years old."

Over time, however, HTML5 will become the standard for websites, he said. "You will see less and less websites using Flash," said Le Hegaret.

There's just enough truth in favor of Flash here to use as a marketing tool to keep people from moving away from it — in the short term. Of course, there's plenty of lie in it too: IE6 may still be being used, but there is no reason to consider that when deciding whether to use HTML5. Simply do what sites used to do in favor of IE6: require users of outdated technology to upgrade to an HTML5 compliant browser.

[Core]

drhowarddrfine, on 08 October 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

The guy you quote says HTML5 will replace Flash over time.

Even with HTML5, there should be an engine that will perform content manipulations. If you take a look at current examples of HTML5 interactions - there is not much HTML5 as Javascript in the context of HTML5. So to say, if I don't want to work with Javascript, I can built whatever RIA I need with Silverlight and/or Flash, because of the lack of major Javascript tooling (which might change over time) that will allow building complex data management and presentation systems.

[Atli]

ladyinblack, on 08 October 2010 - 12:10 PM, said:

Word is HTML 5 works on IE9.

Parts of it, partially. Damn thing doesn't even have text shadows yet
I just hope they manage to support it properly, and update it when the HTML5 standard becomes a recommendation. Would hate to end up having to revert back to some early draft version to support IE9. Not that the major parts will change much now. Minor details, perhaps.

Biggest problem will probably be video and audio codecs. Apple and Microsoft are pushing the H.264 and AAC/MP3 codecs, which are tied up in patents (which they own, partially), which would be a major setback for open-source browsers. - That's mainly the reason for the W3C's hesitation, as I understand it. They don't want the web flooded with "HTML5" video and audio that requires a certain browser to work. I mean, Google, Apple and Microsoft each have their own codecs they could push, and Mozilla is kind of tied to the open-source codecs. -- My vote is for the new Google code, V8

[CTphpnwb]

Atli, on 08 October 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:

That's mainly the reason for the W3C's hesitation, as I understand it. They don't want the web flooded with "HTML5" video and audio that requires a certain browser to work.

That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. Flash video is already proprietary, and even worse, it likely will never work well in mobile devices. The beauty of HTML5 is that it gets away from proprietary technology. There's no reason it can't support multiple video formats, and certainly no reason for proprietary plugins.

[Lemur]

If you're relying on IE9 to magically fix the problems of all its predecessors I'd venture to say you're in for some disappointment on that one. I have my doubts that they'll ever be on the ball with maintaining standards.