51–60 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, so what about what the new elements do for CSS? Won't style sheets be more portable now that we have , , etc.?
Unless new features are added to CSS, I suspect and will behave exactly like s do today.
Programmer. I think it's great that we're extending the semantics of what we have now, but we're going in the wrong direction. I agree really strongly with John Allsopp that we shouldn't be extending the number of elements available - we should be creating a framework for extensible semantics (using attributes or the like): http://www.alistapart.com/articles/semanticsinhtml5 Though I agree that canvas, audio and vide…
HTML 5 (and its X counterpart) should mark an enormous shift in the usability and discoverability of web pages for users of assistive technologies, for indexers and cataloggers, and so forth. doesn't turn me on nearly as much as , , and do.
Programmer - No The idea that we are stuck with javascript instead of a VM is sad.
Not sure what you mean by that... V8 for example is a virtual machine that runs JavaScript.
Programmer - No The idea that we are stuck with javascript instead of a VM is sad.
JavaScript is a VM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
JavaScript is a VM.
Although I love the idea of prototype-based languages (NewtonScript was fun), it is a language and not a standard bytecode. We spent a lot of time learning to optimize it and we are stuck with it. Cross compilers are a poor substitute for a standard vm and bytecode.
Programmer. It doesn't excite me in the least because, since I can't afford to alienate big chunks of my audience, it might have enough penetration to use in, oh, 3-5 years? Meh.
The Google HTML5 plugin for IE6 might not alienate your audience.
As a client- and server-side developer I'm extremely excited about HTML5. For the first time in a decade, browsers are getting new capabilities! HTML 5 is much more than just new tags - we're talking offline support, concurrency with web workers, canvas, geolocation, native audio and video, WebSockets, a supported method of making cross-domain API calls... HTML 5 is clearly aiming to bring the open web platform up to…
I'm excited about many of the new features. However, the move away from XML syntax is a disastrous and utterly pointless decision. Also, I wish they had taken the opportunity to rid the world of the massive failure that is CSS and replace it with a layout system that makes simple things simple.
1) Nobody moved away from XML syntax. You can still use it if you want. 2) In most cases XML syntax is pointelss. 3) HTML5 has nothing to do with CSS, and CSS is doing fine, far from being "massive failure".
Why is it a good idea to invent yet another syntax that is almost the same but not quite compatible?
Looking at the ridiculous guru culture that has formed around minor obscure CSS features is very telling. When that happens to a technology I call it a massive failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google HTML5 plugin for IE6 might not alienate your audience.
I don't get it, though - surely if you are capable of installing a plugin, you are capable of updating your browser, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I love the idea of prototype-based languages (NewtonScript was fun), it is a language and not a standard bytecode. We spent a lot of time learning to optimize it and we are stuck with it. Cross compilers are a poor substitute for a standard vm and bytecode.
Why not, it is a standard and a "bytecode" (Javascript sources being the bytes). Not a very efficient bytecode maybe, but still. You could write a scheme interpreter in JavaScript and have it execute your scheme programs in the browser.