71–80 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine you don't play browser games.
New browser games are rapidly moving away from flash to html5, unity, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine you don't play browser games.
I imagine not that many people would care if they turned into HTML5 Canvas games. Nothing kills a laptop battery or spins the fans like BS flash browser games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we could have goten something similar to XAML, instead of the HTML, CSS magic and JavaScript workarounds to replicate desktop behavious and UIs.
Do the names XHTML2, XForms, XLink, XEvents invoke an image of something like XAML to you? We would have ended in some huge JAVA EE circa 2004 mess, with XML to spare and perhaps RDF and a couple ad-hoc languages thrown in for good measure.
In HTML 5, one is abandoned to the CSS tricks and JavaScript hacks to make visual UI components of HTML tags.
Every time I get a consultant gig outside the web world, I rejoice.
Yet I've spend a big part of my career involved in web development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amusing to me to watch the WHATWG people complain about the W3C having the temerity to put out revisions to their own specification, and then complaining about how the W3C is copying their work. Would they rather W3C put out an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT HTML specification from theirs? Would that be better for anyone at all?
Yes, actually. We'd encourage the HTML working group to do original work. Many W3C working groups do that, e.g. the webapps working group worked on web components and various other specs, and it helps the web platform.
Isn't the whole point of standards to stop that sort of thing happening?
I get that you may feel that someone is just appropriating your work rather than doing their own but if your aim is to build a standard then reusing things is probably going to be part of doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, actually. We'd encourage the HTML working group to do original work. Many W3C working groups do that, e.g. the webapps working group worked on web components and various other specs, and it helps the web platform.
So they should reinvent the wheel when there are good solutions out there? Isn't the whole point of standards to stop that sort of thing happening? I get that you may feel that someone is just appropriating your work rather than doing their own but if your aim is to build a standard then reusing things is probably going to be part of doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they should reinvent the wheel when there are good solutions out there? Isn't the whole point of standards to stop that sort of thing happening? I get that you may feel that someone is just appropriating your work rather than doing their own but if your aim is to build a standard then reusing things is probably going to be part of doing that.
What makes this really funny for me is that WHATWG fully appropriated the spec that W3C wrote for HTML and the DOM, as well as the names HTML and DOM .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No browser ever paid any attention to the version of the HTML specified. The only use for DOCTYPE—and the reason it remains in HTML5—is "doctype switching", i.e. different rendering modes are triggered in the browsers. You can use "html", "html5", "html6.2" or "foobarbaz" as your doctype, the effect will be the same—they will all trigger standards compliant mode.
>'You can use "html", "html5", "html6.2" or "foobarbaz" as your doctype, the effect will be the same—they will all trigger standards compliant mode.' // You're wrong if your asserting that any doctype produces the same results globally but it probably doesn't matter unless you're targeting legacy UA. See e.g. "Appendix: Handling of Some Doctypes in text/html" at https://hsivonen.fi/doctype/ or Eric Meyer's http://arc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equally authoritative? I had no idea WHATWG was drafting specifications, let alone considered authoritative.
Many of the foundational specifications of the web are authored and maintained by the WHATWG these days: https://spec.whatwg.org/ - DOM, HTML: obvious - URL, Encoding, Fetch: foundational building blocks - XHR, Fullscreen, Notifications: important features There are also other up-and-coming specs like Books, Figures, Streams, or Loader (the latter two not listed).
Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s). (Error code: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap)Earlier quoted context omitted.
New browser games are rapidly moving away from flash to html5, unity, etc.
Maybe you should let the guys that write postmortems in GDC, Gamasutra and Making Games Magazine how HTML5 still cannot beat Flash know about it.