HTML5 questions

I hope this has not been posted before, otherwise sorry for the double post.

Recently I have been reading more and more about HTML5 and particularly about its ability to embed audio and video without plug ins (Flash, Silverlight, Java FX).

It seems to me that there are two opposite fronts: those who love it and those who hate it. I would like to know where you stand and why. Please don't make a religious war out of this post.

There's some recent chat about this (and other stuff) in these two threads:

• So what is Open Video?

• Wikipedia will soon have videos

LeoDavidson said:

There's some recent chat about this (and other stuff) in these two threads:

• So what is Open Video?

• Wikipedia will soon have videos

 

Yes, those are the posts that inspired this one. I would like to concentrate here on the comments about HTML5 (and XHTML5) exclusively.

CKurt said:

giovanni said:

*snip*

I think it is a good innitative and it might take off one day like the <img> tagg. But I thinks plugins will still enable much richer intteraction. It's good if you detect the plugin has not been installed you can use <video>, but i prefer the plugin (in case of silverlight)

Maybe you are right. It could be a "standard"alternative in case you don't have or want a specific plug in, but that would mean supporting two different formats at the same time (twice the work and the storage if you need the video files to be encoded in two formats for example).

It feels to me that this is just a way for Google and Apple (who pays the salaries of the editors of the standard) to force their own technology calling it a new standard.

Standards are the foundation of the internet, however relying exclusively on standards, I think, can be dangerous. There would be no incentive in developing better and richer solutions as the "standard" would be the "recommended" way.

From a more technical point of view, what do you think would be the good points of HTML 5 in comparison to Flash and Silverlight?

IMO, Open Video is not going to replace Flash and Silverlight. You simply can't make a follow up GUI after the video is done. Flash and Silverlight are not just video players. Open Video is certainly better to replace offline video formats (mov and wmv). It is more like JPEG effect, everyone is using JPEG online and offline. But you certainly cannot do smooth streaming and deepzoom using open video. Whoever make its video format the main HTML5 format could possiblity be the main offline video format as well.

giovanni said:

CKurt said:

*snip*

Maybe you are right. It could be a "standard"alternative in case you don't have or want a specific plug in, but that would mean supporting two different formats at the same time (twice the work and the storage if you need the video files to be encoded in two formats for example).

It feels to me that this is just a way for Google and Apple (who pays the salaries of the editors of the standard) to force their own technology calling it a new standard.

Standards are the foundation of the internet, however relying exclusively on standards, I think, can be dangerous. There would be no incentive in developing better and richer solutions as the "standard" would be the "recommended" way.

From a more technical point of view, what do you think would be the good points of HTML 5 in comparison to Flash and Silverlight?

"Standards are the foundation of the internet, however relying exclusively on standards, I think, can be dangerous. There would be no incentive in developing better and richer solutions as the "standard" would be the "recommended" way."

In general I agree with this, but it's ridiculous to have to bring in an entire separate runtime in a plug-in just to watch a damn video on the web, when videos have become ubiquitous.  Having an HTML element for it just makes sense.

But I'm all for Silverlight being there to challenge "you can program in any language as long as it's Javascript" ...

contextfree said:

giovanni said:

*snip*

"Standards are the foundation of the internet, however relying exclusively on standards, I think, can be dangerous. There would be no incentive in developing better and richer solutions as the "standard" would be the "recommended" way."

In general I agree with this, but it's ridiculous to have to bring in an entire separate runtime in a plug-in just to watch a damn video on the web, when videos have become ubiquitous.  Having an HTML element for it just makes sense.

But I'm all for Silverlight being there to challenge "you can program in any language as long as it's Javascript" ...

HTML5 with audio/video DOM objects is coming in FF3.5 and the new Chrome. It will be here in weeks, not months or years.

3D DOM manipulation to create real time 3D games with DOM will be here within 1 year. FF3.5 will also have fully threaded javascript.

https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_DOM_workers

Check out the day 1 keynote from I/O 2009 for more about HTML5

http://code.google.com/events/io/

You can view the rest of the videos here. This content is far better than C9 content, so go nuts, it's free. It's not like Google tried to put it on some cheap blank DVDs and tried to market it to you for $500 a box set or anything.

http://code.google.com/events/io/sessions.html

blowdart said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

Yes but google and chrome are simply picking and choosing what parts of the "standard" they implement (it's not a standard right now anyway, it's a draft). And when that happens it's very risky, look what happened to Netscape's guesswork with the Layer tag - developers had to code around a broken, non-compliant implementation for years because a browser company decided to jump the gun in order to get a competitive advantage. MS also learnt this the hard way with their XML bits. Mozilla's threading bits aren't part of any standard at all, they're the new <blink> tag.

It's interesting to note who is driving the standard - Google and Apple, people who complained loudly when MS tried to implement new non-standard bits but are happy to do it themselves. Heck Google already said they would try to push for additions to HTML5 to support Wave - and that's very worrying, a company influencing a standard just to suit one of their applications.

I don't think that a company influencing a standard is de facto bad behaviour in every case. Their POV is going to be that they had an engineering problem, here's there proposed solution to make this easier in future. 

After I first started hearing bleating about HTML5 I looked at the draft on w3.org, saw it just had a name from Apple & Google and just presumed HTML5 was just going to be a WebKit thing for now.

Not sure how W3 politics actually works, are Apple & Google trying to build consensus around v5 whilst MS, Mozilla etc are still looking to build their block of consensus elsewhere?

blowdart said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

Yes but google and chrome are simply picking and choosing what parts of the "standard" they implement (it's not a standard right now anyway, it's a draft). And when that happens it's very risky, look what happened to Netscape's guesswork with the Layer tag - developers had to code around a broken, non-compliant implementation for years because a browser company decided to jump the gun in order to get a competitive advantage. MS also learnt this the hard way with their XML bits. Mozilla's threading bits aren't part of any standard at all, they're the new <blink> tag.

It's interesting to note who is driving the standard - Google and Apple, people who complained loudly when MS tried to implement new non-standard bits but are happy to do it themselves. Heck Google already said they would try to push for additions to HTML5 to support Wave - and that's very worrying, a company influencing a standard just to suit one of their applications.

One must ask, is Microsoft ignoring the standards process or the standards process ignoring Microsoft?

blowdart said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

Yes but google and chrome are simply picking and choosing what parts of the "standard" they implement (it's not a standard right now anyway, it's a draft). And when that happens it's very risky, look what happened to Netscape's guesswork with the Layer tag - developers had to code around a broken, non-compliant implementation for years because a browser company decided to jump the gun in order to get a competitive advantage. MS also learnt this the hard way with their XML bits. Mozilla's threading bits aren't part of any standard at all, they're the new <blink> tag.

It's interesting to note who is driving the standard - Google and Apple, people who complained loudly when MS tried to implement new non-standard bits but are happy to do it themselves. Heck Google already said they would try to push for additions to HTML5 to support Wave - and that's very worrying, a company influencing a standard just to suit one of their applications.

"Google and Apple, people who complained loudly when MS tried to implement new non-standard bits but are happy to do it themselves."

Are you comparing Active X, bogus PNG support and JScript to a partial HTML5 implementation?

What Microsoft implemented was based on nothing outside of their walls, and it's sole purpose  was to promote the lack of browser compatibility(clone and superset) in order to manipulate people into exclusively using it's products forever.

Without JQuery and other libraries which abstract away IE, we would still be using the web in 1998 mode, right where Microsoft wants us.

I disagree about javascript worker threads. Once we can script 3D DOM they will absolutely be needed. They are already needed for processing rectangles in DOM video objects.

"One must ask, is Microsoft ignoring the standards process or the standards process ignoring Microsoft?"

Microsoft is waiting and seeing because all else has failed.

I like HTML 5, but I think HTML 4.01 is just fine.  CSS needs fixing more than HTML does.

I don't get why they are still bothering with making a new version of HTML instead of integrating these ideas with XHTML (2).

Don't think this has been posted here yet. An email from Monday, by someone involved with the HTML5 spec, summarising the state of the video codec issue:

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

May28th2018 said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

"Google and Apple, people who complained loudly when MS tried to implement new non-standard bits but are happy to do it themselves."

Are you comparing Active X, bogus PNG support and JScript to a partial HTML5 implementation?

What Microsoft implemented was based on nothing outside of their walls, and it's sole purpose  was to promote the lack of browser compatibility(clone and superset) in order to manipulate people into exclusively using it's products forever.

Without JQuery and other libraries which abstract away IE, we would still be using the web in 1998 mode, right where Microsoft wants us.

I disagree about javascript worker threads. Once we can script 3D DOM they will absolutely be needed. They are already needed for processing rectangles in DOM video objects.

"One must ask, is Microsoft ignoring the standards process or the standards process ignoring Microsoft?"

Microsoft is waiting and seeing because all else has failed.

Are you comparing Active X, bogus PNG support and JScript to a partial HTML5 implementation?

• ActiveX support is perfectly following the standard regarding the <object> tag. That tag was defined in the spec with pretty much that purpose in mind.
• PNG was supported in IE well before other browsers, and only one part (transparency) was lacking if you didn't want to put the one-line fix additional effort (that everybody knew, and everybody chose to ignore so they could * about EBIL M$)
• JScript, when released, was the ONLY ECMAScript compatible implementation. JavaScript go there much later.

Could you point me to the spec for "workers"? Why are Chrome and Safari not following the HTML5 spec?

LeoDavidson said:

Don't think this has been posted here yet. An email from Monday, by someone involved with the HTML5 spec, summarising the state of the video codec issue:

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

 

Ahah.. awesome. <video> == <embed>.

Welcome to 1995