Comments on: Interview with Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML 5 specification.

By: Goyax

Goyax — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:05:02 +0000

It is very important that the new standard and the team behind it (for example the Microsoft employee sitting on one of the chairs of the W3C) is able to connect browser vendors more and involve them that far, so web-developpers are not forced anymore to keep an eye on every single browser implementation. The success of the www is that all applications in it (talking about applications means even a simple html-only-page) are usable on so many diffenrent devices and operating systems. Eliminating differences between the browser implementations will speed up the evolution of the www.

By: Proxy

Proxy — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:54:20 +0000

Sounds useful, i´ll try the new specification. What about XHTML? Will core elements of XHTML get integrated into HTML 5 specs?

By: Bevan

Bevan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:16:36 +0000

Nice Interview, great sharing about HTML Bevanwistar

By: joooc

joooc — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:59:15 +0000

I like the idea of non-version HTML standard. A lot of web apps doesn’t use versions anymore (they just simply update on the run).

However I’m scared about possible mess generated by various browsers and their implementation of the most recent rules … on the other hand it should be less work to do it step by step so they can better react … sounds interesting.

Looking forward for my first HTML 5 valid web page ;-)

By: Yazgunu

Yazgunu — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:18:19 +0000

I still hope to see the day the Flash dies.

By: Christian

Christian — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:59:29 +0000

The main thing that I miss about HTML5 is extensibility. Everything is either baked in and bloats the main spec or has to rely on clumsy, underspecified class-attribute hacks.

XML may not be perfect and the convention of using URLs as namespace identifiers must have created confusion without end. But at least XHTML has an extension mechanism – only that Microsoft never started supporting it. Why is there no consideration to do something similar with non-XML HTML5? Is using divs with strange attributes really better than using additional vocabularies in HTML? (RDFa is also a hack in this respect IMO, but at least it can accomodate extension vocabularies in a decentralized and conflict-free fashion. Before tossing that out of the window, an attempt should be made of doing namespaces in a clearer fashion, if URNs are considered to be too complicated).

I really don’t understand this whole aspect of HTML5. Yes, the W3C XHTML stuff was over-engineered and sometimes far away from reality. Yes, they put the bar a bit too high and so the transition never happened.

But baking every possible use case into one core vocabulary won’t do either.

By: Schoschie

Schoschie — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:49:57 +0000

Dammit, now you spoiled Fight Club for me.

By: Dominic Shiells

Dominic Shiells — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:27:14 +0000

With the spec is there any examples of the code to see how it is used in a practical format!
Dom

By: Sandra

Sandra — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:09:24 +0000

Flash is a “common cross-browser extension”? Sure, a common, non-free implementantation (with variants and ports between browsers and platform).

If Gnash or other non-Flash flash implementations were to take off, we’d see the same slowdown as between browser implementors today.

I don’t have Flash installed. I will install a good HTML 5 implementation.

I don’t want to lock my works in a platform that’s basically controlled by a single restricted-use, restricted-modification implementation. If Flash were DSFG-free, it’d be back in the running.

By: Hamranhansenhansen

Hamranhansenhansen — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:24:13 +0000

> I think if we’re talking about conflating
> structure and behaviour

Structure and behavior is already conflated in HTML 4. You can separate them as much as you like in your own applications. HTML 5 is not forcing your hand either way.

> [Flash]

I started working with Flash in 1997 and it frustrates me that things I could do then easily in Flash are still either hard to do or basically impossible on the Web.

However, Flash is not now and has never been part of the World Wide Web. The Web is an application of the Internet, same as Flash. They’re peers. The browser and Flash Player are 2 separate apps pretending to be one because Windows still doesn’t have its own MPEG-4 player.

WebKit is just a few megabytes, and it runs on Intel, PowerPC, and ARM with industry-leading performance. And it’s free and open source and used by Apple, Google, Nokia, Blackberry, Palm, and others. Mobiles have MPEG-4 decoder chips. There is no need for Flash on mobiles. If there was, it would already be there.