Comment Feed for HTML5 questions (Coffeehouse on Channel 9)

Re: Re: HTML5 questions

LeoDavidson — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:01:00 GMT

From the article:

If we find such problems in HTML5, we’ll change the specification — but to find such problems, we have to write big test suites and that’s going to take a long time. That’s what the last 10 years of the timetable are about.

Wow... I'm not sure that makes sense. This smacks of putting the "beta" label on something because you don't have the guts to stand by it. I don't see anything wrong with calling a spec "done" without that 10 years of extra testing, while doing the normal thing of reserving the right to amend and correct the spec (or produce follow-ups which supersede it, like RFCs often do) as and when problems are found.

I suppose it's just semantics about what "done" means, though... So long as the people saying IE will ignore HTML5 when it's "done" don't mean the same "done." :)

These long spec processes and speculative implementations of them remind me of the mess that Wifi has and still is in. :(

Edit: s/IT/IE/

Re: HTML5 questions

blowdart — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:43:20 GMT

It's ok you have until 2022 until the recommendation is finalised.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

peterwillcn — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:37:50 GMT

<ms-video> wm* </ms-video> Standard

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

May28th2018 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:45:51 GMT

fixed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Bass — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:38:13 GMT

Yes but we know that H.264 violates patents that aren't covered by the MPEG LA licensing agreement. It's just that a judge basically ruled that any such patents are invalid simply because H.264 is too important to train wreck. Seems silly to give one such codec special treatment under the law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

blowdart — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:32:16 GMT

Ah no, no-one knows if Dirac violates any patents. Whereas one would assume MS would have been sued by now if WM* had.

Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Bass — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:30:53 GMT

Will that happen the day before or after Microsoft releases Windows under an open source license? :)

I suppose if Microsoft did do that they'd actually take them up on the offer. But it seems unlikely, I don't really think Microsoft wants to see HTML5 succeed. HTML is in competition with their "Windows Everywhere" strategy.

What's strange about the whole thing is we already have a patent free and high quality codec that was created and wide used by the BBC (called "Dirac"). It doesn't even seem to be under consideration.

But basically the patent system is broken here in the USA. Submarine patents are a big problem, even H.264 was threatened by one from Qualcomm. Actually H.264 was considered important enough that a judge basically said that if you have a submarine patent against H.264, you aren't allowed to use it, doesn't matter if it's "valid" or not. I wonder if the government will give other codecs similar treatment.

Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

blowdart — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:09:57 GMT

Wouldn't it be rather amusing if MS offered up WMA/WMV under a free patent license for W3 video use?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

PaoloM — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:25:28 GMT

/me jumps and hits a brick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

W3bbo — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:58:50 GMT

/me gives PaoloM a golden coin for defending me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

PaoloM — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:10:10 GMT

Hey, leave poor W3bbo alone!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

May28th2018 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:29:53 GMT

The following comment is in reply to Paolo's comments defending the Microsoft corporation.

Does Bill Gates give you a hand full of gold coins every time you mindlessly defend a product, break a brick and blinking flower comes up?

Re: HTML5 questions

Erisan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:27:12 GMT

XHTML 2 Working Group Expected to Stop Work End of 2009, W3C to Increase Resources on HTML 5

Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

DouglasH — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:08:24 GMT

the answer to that question is yes and no.

HTML5 is defineing both a xml and a html version of the standard. If it is delivered as XML then it must be xml compatable and that is backwards compatable with HTML unfortantly they are also defineing a HTML version that is not XML compliant.

Clear as mud??

Douglas

Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

LeoDavidson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:52:02 GMT

The HTML5 spec seems to have a section specifying how to serialise HTML5 as XML, so I guess so. Can't say I've read it or am an expert on XHTML, though.

Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

ZippyV — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:15:55 GMT

Will HTML5 then be XML compliant?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

DouglasH — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:47:14 GMT

I believe you state the specific weakness of the w3 specs.

HTML 4.0x xhtml 1.0, plus mathml plus svg plus smil do not work together.

SVG and HTML are top level languages (which in some instances can become sub languages.)

The issue becomes how does the browser interact with all of those specs? on the same page in the multiple domains.

Opera so far has gone the furtherst in implementing a browser that handles it. But the primary browser needs to be XML engine that handles the poorly speced 4.0x. if it starts as a html page. or handle html and mathml islands if it starts as svg.

Since css hasn't been completed let to work in that domain it gets more interesting.

That said I believe that the more correct approach would be to define the underlying browser technologies. that handle any language to implement on it.

IOW xHTML, SVG MATHML would all sub class under a super canvas class. But I doubt we wil ever see such a beast coming from the highly political design by committee world of w3.

IMO HTML 5 is already a failure although it will take us closer to actually defining the browser and its fallbacks.

DouglasH

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

DouglasH — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:34:26 GMT

in that MS has already failed then. since they have already implemented some of the more stable parts of HTML 5 in IE 8. primarily the database features of HTML 5.

Re: Re: HTML5 questions

DouglasH — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:32:34 GMT

hmm, I about cringed on the statement that html 4.0x is fine that css needs more fixing.

I will just state it this way, (and the html working group agrees) there isn't a single browser that fully implements html 4.0x, and there will never be any that can because there are several areas in the spec that contridict each other. There is also many areas that are left to interpetation. there is no set rules for error handleing and error fall back. etc etc.

HTML 4.0x and the long line of underspecified specs before it are the Primary reason for the html 5 spec and its wider definition of how a browser should handle different aspects. and has been Jokenly stated that it will release in 2020.

DouglasH

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

AndyC — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:07:02 GMT

And both of those are a fantastic example of exactly why Microsoft should omit support for unfinished standards from IE, because every web developer who ever dealt with IE6 should know just how painful it can be when something was implemented based on a half finished version of a spec that subsequently changed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Bent Rasmussen — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:37:23 GMT

There is the issue of self-canibalization: since Silverlight is now Microsofts pendant to Flash and these media engines support vector graphics, video, animation, etc., it becomes a question of whether to support both fronts equally (Silverlight and the browser) or let one stay ahead of the other. In a sense, if all browsers started supporting vector graphics and video, that might dampen the evolution of these plugged-in engines.

It's probably fair to say that Microsoft prefers the Silverlight architechture to the W3C jigsaw puzzle, otherwise I'd expect them to fully support SVG, SMIL, etc. There's another reason for this preference and that's the natural glide path from Silverlight into WPF with Visual Studio and Expression Blend being the premier development tools for these APIs.

On the other hand it's probably also fair to say that a certain lesson has been learned in that it is not wise to lag too far behind other browsers. So there will be some form of co-evolution, probably - with Silverlight being the clear priority...

In fairness, IE supports or supported native vector graphics via VML and? HTML+TIME - although maybe not in the IE8 engine; I heard CSS expressions (I forget the precise name) were also phased out - but they were proprietary anyway.

I see plugins as a playground for new developments that can be rapidly deployed to the Web (depending on the update experience of the particular plugin).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Joe Chung — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:12:46 GMT

"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$)."

http://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=433767

That's just one of several unfixed bugs logged with that "one line fix." AlphaImageLoader is problematic. PNG's just work in other modern browsers but not in Internet Explorer.

http://www.hrunting.org/csstests/iealpha.html is a great example of the kind of BS Web developers have to deal with when making Web pages for Internet Explorer and your "one line fix."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Bent Rasmussen — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:12:22 GMT

Actually Javascript challenges "you can program in any language as long as it's CIL" ;-)

There are Java, C#, PHP, haXe, etc. compilers that compile to Javascript. Both are nice to have.

Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Joe Chung — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:07:26 GMT

XHTML 2 is dead. http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item119

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HTML5 questions

Tommy Carlier — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:41:42 GMT

So, because IE supported part of PNG before other browsers, and because JScript was the only ECMAScript compatible implementation a gazillion years ago, it's o.k. for IE to lag behind now?

I'm a fan of certain Microsoft products (C#, .NET, Visual Studio), I like Windows, I see a lot of potential in Silverlight, but I don't see it as a replacement for HTML. Especially considering the fact that Silverlight is not supported in Opera or on any other platforms than Windows and Mac OS X. Sure, we have Moonlight, but as long as Microsoft remains vague about what its intentions are related to Mono, a lot of people will remain wary.

I'm not saying it is, but from the outside it seems like Microsoft is trying to hold back the de facto standards other browsers are pushing (SVG, canvas, …) because it doesn't match with Microsoft's ideal future (Windows everywhere).