×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

W3C Announces Plan To Deliver HTML 5 by 2014

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the accelerate-the-plan dept.

The Internet 110

The World Wide Web Consortium has proposed "a new plan that would see the HTML 5 spec positioned as a Recommendation—which in W3C's lingo represents a complete, finished standard—by the end of 2014. The group plans a follow-up, HTML 5.1, for the end of 2016." Instead of working toward one-specification-to-rule-them-all in 2022, features that are stable and implemented in multiple browsers now will be finalized as HTML 5.0 by 2014 with unstable features moved into HTML 5.1 (developed in parallel). In 2014, the commonly implemented parts of HTML 5.1 will begin finalization for 2016, with the unstable parts moved into HTML 5.2 (wash, rinse, repeat). Additionally, things like Web Sockets are being moved into their own modular standards (sound familiar?) for "...the social benefits that accrue from such an approach. Splitting out separate specifications allows those technologies to be advanced by their respective communities of interest, allowing more productive development of approaches that may eventually be able reach broader consensus."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That quickly? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41409493)

Wow, let's not rush into anything here guys.

Re:That quickly? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409557)

By the W3Cs standards, that's lightning fast. Besides, what happened to HTML5 being a versionless "living standard" (that is, constantly moving target). HTML5.1? That sounds like versions to me, guys!

Re:That quickly? (1)

SquarePixel (1851068) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409591)

I'm just waiting for them to pick up the pace like Chrome and Firefox did. HTML 38, here we come!

Re:That quickly? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409655)

The living standard thing was more WHATWG's idea. As far as I can tell, they and the W3C are cooperating on schedules and features, except when they're not. The W3C's and WHATWG's pace and goals seem to be quite different.

Re:That quickly? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410725)

By the W3Cs standards, that's lightning fast.

It is! I had a slight hope that by the time The Oxford English Dictionary Third Edition will be finished, they will be able to use it, instead of that horrible flash-like thing. This date makes it a little bit more realistic.

Re:That quickly? (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411033)

Besides, what happened to HTML5 being a versionless "living standard"

WHATWG manages the HTML "living standard". WHATWG HTML living standard is basically the venue in which interested parties, most notably all of the major browser vendors, hash out agreements on what will be supported in the future.

W3C has HTML5 (and apparently now plans for HTML5.1, etc.) which seems certain to trail far behind the WHATWG living standard.

If you think of the W3Cs standards as appropriate targets for relatively conservative web developers while WHATWG standards are for people building browsers and other infrastructure to work toward (plus, with a lot of caution as to particular browsers support status for individual features, more cutting edge web developers), it kind of makes sense.

Re:That quickly? (1)

Altanar (56809) | more than 2 years ago | (#41417629)

I especially fail to see how the sub-versions of HTML5 will be any meaningful way different from the living standard since they will all use presumably <!DOCTYPE html>. To the browser every document using that will be HTML5 with no mention of a decimal point.

Re:That quickly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41411417)

No, no, no, the headline's got it confused. The announcement will be in 2014.

Re:That quickly? (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411779)

Part of the REC process involves having two browsers agreeing on the implementation of every HTML5 feature. How long do you expect this to take?

It also involves writing a test suite to ensure that this is actually happening. Contributed any tests to tha recently?

Html5 is FUD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41409529)

Html5 as an cross platform application development framework is FUD

Re:Html5 is FUD (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409561)

Which bit is the Fear, which is the Uncertainty and which is the Doubt? Or are you just using FUD as a synonym for "bad" for no apparent reason?

Re:Html5 is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41409865)

Fucked Up Discourse, may be?

Seriously, though, all those enthusiastic talks about "You just write an HTML5 webapp once and run it everywhere! Just think about all those modern browsers and mobile devices you could target at once!" a few years ago, since about iPhone 1 introduction, and still nothing useful outside of simple browser games and webtoys.

Graphics APIs are pretty stable, but more than that? Web audio API's getting standardized, but it's still quite raw. And using it on mobile devices? Out of question.

Writing files? You wish! Accessing all the various input devices like cameras, gamepads, microphones or accelerometers? Hah. Peer-to-peer connections? Suuure.

Re:Html5 is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410137)

But you can write files.
And you can access various input devices now.
P2P is also working, if at the experimental stages.
Keep up. (these are also half a year old now, I haven't checked their status since then)

Re:Html5 is FUD (2)

SquarePixel (1851068) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410253)

Doesn't anyone have problem with the full source code being available? I mean if you develop with HTML5 and JS the full source is there. I think companies might have a problem with that.

Re:Html5 is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41411007)

Don't worry; your proprietary HTML5 and JS code is protected by copyright.

Re:Html5 is FUD (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411471)

Doesn't anyone have problem with the full source code being available?

Why would the source being open be a problem? If I'm running something blindly off the internet, I want to know what it's doing. I take it you're not a fan of open source software? If the source is closed, how can you trust the code? I'll take open source over closed any day.

Re:Html5 is FUD (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411569)

hmm i wonder if adobe will start selling a modified version their drm scheme that is currently used on pdf's and epub's as a drm scheme for HTML5, CSS, and Javascript?

PS i here by patent drm schema implemented on web-scripting languages,
PSS and on a mobile device

Re:Html5 is FUD (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412775)

IMO minified JS is not much different in this regard from java or flash. Both Java and Flash can be readilly decompiled back to something resembling source code.

Re:Html5 is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41412991)

Doesn't anyone have problem with the full source code being available? I mean if you develop with HTML5 and JS the full source is there. I think companies might have a problem with that.

I work on several widely used web apps. One uses GWT, the others minify and obfuscate their javascript (https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/) to make it download faster. Both methods produce javascript that is about as readable as the output of a C compiler. I can't think of any reason to care that people can read our HTML and CSS. HTML and CSS only contain information the user can see and read. We have no reason to keep that secret.

In a past life I worked on chip design software, written in C++ and shipped as a binary on Solaris and AIX. A one year licence cost 80k$. We did have problems where customers tried to disassemble our binaries to find out how we computed some information, and write their own versions. This is less of a problem with web stuff, because it is so cheap that cracking it is not worth a competent person's time. If you really want something to stay secret, have the web app make a request to a server you control. This is more protection than we had when every program was shipped as a binary.

Re:Html5 is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41412551)

Which part of all those are cross-platform? FileWriter, AFAICR, is still Chrome only, accessing various input devices is done in a bunch of various ways with various and rather poor support across browsers, P2P is, as you said, "at the experimental stages".

I do keep up, and their status doesn't progress much. It's been almost a decade since HTML5 began and half a decade since smartphones and tablets revolution, crossplatform webapps are still out of reach.

They missed the train. There was a chance to ride on the wave of mobile adoption, but now it seems to be too late, as everyone's content with native apps and crossplatform SDKs to write them. Sure, not as easy to deploy as a webpage, but simple enough and - that's important too - easy to take payments.

Just in time (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409539)

Just in time for the first HTML6 browsers.

Re:Just in time (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409593)

HTML6 is the future! :)

Re:Just in time (4, Funny)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409671)

It doesn't matter what version of HTML you're using. Someone will always want the <blink> tag.

text-decoration:blink (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409923)

Someone will always want the <blink> tag.

As I see it, the <blink> element is presentational and should ideally be implemented with CSS text-decoration:blink or with a CSS animation on an element's opacity. It could gain a retconned semantic meaning, just as the <b>, <i>, <s>, and <hr> elements did in HTML5, but I don't see what that meaning would be.

Re:text-decoration:blink (2)

trevc (1471197) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410229)

As I see it, the <blink> element is presentational and should ideally be implemented with CSS text-decoration:blink or with a CSS animation on an element's opacity. It could gain a retconned semantic meaning, just as the <b>, <i>, <s>, and <hr> elements did in HTML5, but I don't see what that meaning would be.

Lets debate it for another couple of years.....

Re:text-decoration:blink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41411621)

Well, now it's probably something like:
blink {animation: blink 2s}
@keyframes blink {from {visibility: visible} to {visibility: hidden} }

Re:text-decoration:blink (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413155)

The hr element may lack semantic meaning, but as far as I'm aware no semantic equivalent has been proposed (which is a shame!).

hr stands for tHematic bReak (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413299)

The semantic meaning of the <hr> element according to W3C's HTML5 draft is a paragraph-level tHematic bReak [w3.org] .

Re:Just in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410379)

Poor <blink>, when will you get the recognition you deserve?

Re:Just in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410859)

The recognition the <blink> tag deserved is the recognition it got - the karmic payback that resulted in Netscape corporation (creators of <blink> ) being destroyed for their horrible crimes against user's eyes.

Re:Just in time (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412071)

Someone will always want the <blink> tag.

I don't want the <blink> tag, but I do wonder why they deprecated the <font> tag.

Re:Just in time (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413555)

Because it serves no purpose that p or span won't already do?

Re:Just in time (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413583)

Because that's what CSS is for.

Re:Just in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41414625)

Because the Font has nothing to do with content, which is what you're writing when you write HTML.

Does anyone even care what they do now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41409553)

I'm pretty sure the entire community pretty much shafted them a couple months ago, did they not?

Well, besides the people who still think you need a version to target.
You have no problems with CSS and JS, there are no version controls in either of those, why the problem with HTML?
HTML was very specifically rewritten TO BE versionless with the new markup. The other ones had a plethora of meaningless containers.
They thought hard and well about exactly which basic main elements would be needed and implemented them very well. Any new ones needed will just get slapped on board like any other thing. (LIKE IT IS NOW, don't see you whining when all those other things were added outside of versions!)

I Wonder If It Will Matter (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409575)

I wonder if it will even matter anymore?

With everyone willingly giving up everything to go into walled gardens, and the obvious superiority of native code applications*, is HTML5 a dead end?

Discuss! (ha)

* Not saying that pretty much all apps on smartphones I've used aren't buggy, featureless, poorly designed piece of shit--they are--so much so. And I love the openness of using web sites and never having to need to update my software. I love it. I'm just saying they have the *potential*.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409609)

I wonder if it will even matter anymore?

With everyone willingly giving up everything to go into walled gardens, and the obvious superiority of native code applications*, is HTML5 a dead end?

Discuss! (ha)

* Not saying that pretty much all apps on smartphones I've used aren't buggy, featureless, poorly designed piece of shit--they are--so much so. And I love the openness of using web sites and never having to need to update my software. I love it. I'm just saying they have the *potential*.

Many "native walled app" are wrappers around html5. If you want something to run cross platform, and don't have any taxing performance requirements, it is an easy way to go.

Media Capture API not yet implemented (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409951)

If you want something to run cross platform, and don't have any taxing performance requirements, [HTML5] is an easy way to go.

So how should an HTML5 app on current devices access the device's camera or microphone?

Re:Media Capture API not yet implemented (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410081)

Using PhoneGap? It's apps wrapping HTML we're talking about, after all. You still have to build separate packages for different platforms, but at least the code will stay the same, as HTML5 promised and failed to deliver yet.

Annual fee (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411803)

You still have to build separate packages for different platforms

And pay each platform's annual fee. A $99 per platform per year fee adds up, especially if you're trying to provide a $0.00 app across iOS, Windows Phone, and Amazon Appstore.

Re:Annual fee (1)

whosdat (2551450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412611)

Actually, Adobe bought PhoneGap and gave it to Apache (PhoneGap's site refers to it as "Apache Cordova" in all documentation) quite a while ago, so now it's free under APL and they only sell support.

Re:Annual fee (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413343)

The fee for using Cordova (formerly PhoneGap) isn't payable to Adobe or Apache. It's payable to the three device manufacturers, namely Apple (iOS App Store), Amazon (Amazon Appstore), and Microsoft (Windows Store). How do you recommend that a hobbyist building a $0.00 application in Cordova recover the $297 per year payable to Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft?

Re:Annual fee (1)

whosdat (2551450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413771)

I'd recommend a hobbyist not to bother with those platforms if he's so inclined on making it free. Fee for developer access to closed platforms is nothing new and mobile platform fees is pretty low in comparison, just ask console developers. Or he might consider making it ad-supported, or donation supported.

Why must hobbies be expense-free? Even if HTML5 succeeded, you'd still probably want a paid hosting for your webapp. But whatever you do, you are already spending your time on developing this $0.00 application, and that time could be pretty easily converted to money. Why's extra $10 per month bothering you? If you're publishing free applications, it's either because you're charitable, in which case you shouldn't mind it, or because you're planning to recoup costs in other ways.

But anyways, how is it relevant to PhoneGap? The only point of this thread is "WHATWG and W3C failed on promises of effortless crossplatform development with HTML, Cordova mostly closes the gap", philosophy and economy of software development is beyond this topic.

Re:Media Capture API not yet implemented (2)

James Carnley (789899) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411353)

Using HTML5's GetUserMedia() [html5rocks.com]

Re:Media Capture API not yet implemented (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411767)

Media Capture API not yet implemented

Using HTML5's GetUserMedia()

Which is undefined everywhere but Opera [caniuse.com] .

Re:Media Capture API not yet implemented (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#41416225)

Even the page you pointed to has Chrome listed as supporting it.

Also Firefox will be rolling it out soon, as they are busy implementing WebRTC.

IE seems to be interrested in supporting WebRTC too, so they'll have to roll it out too.

And Apple is usually very quiet about what they will.

Chrome doesn't support getUserMedia (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41416393)

Even the page you pointed to has Chrome listed as supporting it.

Then the page I pointed to must be wrong. I visited this demo [shinydemos.com] in Chrome for Android (version 18.0.1025308) on my Nexus 7 and got the error message "Your browser doesn’t support all required features: WebRTC getUserMedia". I visited the same demo in Chromium Browser for GNU/Linux (version 18.0.1025.168) on my computer and got the same error message. Might it have something to do with the message "Requires this prefix to work" that I get when I hover over Chrome's entry?

Re:Chrome doesn't support getUserMedia (1)

Altanar (56809) | more than 2 years ago | (#41417681)

The desktop version of Chrome supports it. Chrome for Android is 3 versions behind the desktop release.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410277)

Open standards like HTML (5) are must. We have seen that there is no healtfy markets with closed code and stardards. I mean everything in pc-software industry belongs now to Microsoft. And MS is trying to spread it's dictatorship to mobile by using it's dictatorship in pc.
And that why HTML5 has been so slow to come. MS's software are the only which do not support HTML5. IE10 is jet not here but is already behind others in HTML5 support.

Let's just hope MS can not prevent HTML5 more anymore.
Free markets (competition, progress) require open standards.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (2)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409637)

Mozilla is still giving HTML 5 a shot with FirefoxOS, but unless major phone manufacturers pick up on that it's DOA as far as I'm concerned.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410941)

Doesnt seem likely.. Firefox market share has been dropping since the beginning of 2010 (lost almost 1/3rd of its market share), telling us that more and more people are not satisfied with the browser. Why would people want to adopt an entire new OS built on something that they are growingly not satisfied with?

ChromeOS has much more of a chance, and by most people estimates, that chance is somewhere between slim and fat.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#41416255)

Really I don't think desktop market share of Firefox in the last few years matters all that much for mobile OS development. They share in the desktop market is big enough that many recognise the name.

They have backing from some large telcos in certain countries, we'll have to see if Mozilla and other developers can deliver.

If they do they'll have a cheaper phone with similair functionality than what others are delivering.

Then they might have a chance.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411087)

Discuss!

I always get the urge to punch people in the face when they end postings with that.

Re:I Wonder If It Will Matter (2)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412185)

Parent seems to be upset about something or other, discuss!

Browser vendors decide the specs? (4, Interesting)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409623)

So basically it's the browser vendors that eventually determine what goes in and what stays out? How much of an influence will Internet Explorer have on this?

Re:Browser vendors decide the specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41409973)

Depends on how much influence Enterprise Businesses exert?

I would assume the slow release rate, and the more "stable" release practices (not stable as in perfect, but stable as in set in stone. not a moving target like Chrome/FF with daily/weekly uncontrollable updates) will still be more preferable by business applications (the same shit that's been stuck on IE6).

While Consumer habits will push things along, Businesses won't... can't... move as fast. They will need something like 5.0 or 5.1 to build against.

Re:Browser vendors decide the specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410429)

It doesn't matter, WHATWG hasn't been paying any attention to the enterprise and have ignored just about all the important points they've made to date and they're the ones driving the process.

It's entirely about what a few select devs at Mozilla, Google and Apple want to a lesser extent, but primarily simply just what Ian Hickson wants with no regards for anyone elses opinion including those very enterprises who will have to work with this shit.

Re:Browser vendors decide the specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410195)

Yes, since WHATWG hijacked the standards process that's exactly right.

Internet Explorer will have little say because WHATWG is an effective dictatorship led by Google, Apple, and Mozilla staff.

Good idea (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409727)

Finalize the things that we already have, this long-stretched process is already hurting the web.

Your face ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410301)

This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.

The reality... (1, Insightful)

pointyhat (2649443) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409735)

And by 2019, all the browsers on the market may actually support it consistently, just like they did with HTML2, HTML3, HTML4! (that was sarcastic for the sarcasm challenged).

Seriously, the world wide web and HTML itself are just a series of horrible bits of sticky tape which no longer stick to anything and string that is very frayed. It's like a train in India (most of the passengers on the outside). It only works by some remarkable coincidence of the same order of magnitude of how life managed to evolve on this planet. Every client interprets it differently. Every client displays it differently. Every server serves it differently. Security was an afterthought. HTML5 suddenly being ratified and published isn't going to make these problems go away.

For ref, this is not because I don't get it. I've been kicking out web applications on and off for 16 years. Even desktop development with Swing is beautiful compared to this crapfest.

Someone just needs to fix it (no XKCD 927 here please :).

Re:The reality... (4, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409949)

And by 2019, all the browsers on the market may actually support it consistently, just like they did with HTML2, HTML3, HTML4! (that was sarcastic for the sarcasm challenged).

Are you making fun of the fact that Firefox still can't center the text in a table using the <col> element 14 years after HTML 4.0 came out? :|

Re:The reality... (1)

pointyhat (2649443) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410027)

No specific browser problems. They are all as shitty as each other.

Re:The reality... (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412573)

No specific browser problems. They are all as shitty as each other.

Not all of them [opera.com]

Re:The reality... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#41418281)

Actually the problem is worse.

I am trying to do a startup that cateers to business users. How many percentage wise support HTML 5 ... I mean at all today? 5%? They all use IE 8. I plan to ignore IE 6 support as it will be phased out in 2014 and it will be a year anyway before it debuts so these corpos will be spending $$$$ upgrading to which browser? If you guessed IE 8 you are correct.

In 2019 they still will be using IE 8 as it was such a pain to move to IE 6 and are terrified of the prospect of doing it again. The grandparent is making fun of that and sadly I am dead serious when I say long live HTML 4 until 2019!

Sigh ... unless someone else besides Google jumps the bandwagon they will probably now stay with IE 8 forever. Also these grandmas at home and not corps will still use that dinosaur too. So as the saying the soup nazi in Senfield says "NO HTML 5 FOR YOU!"

Please I do not care about (col) or any ancient netscape bugs. I do care more about ancient IE still living and ruining the web for everyone else.

Re:The reality... (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#41416321)

Actually, you might not have noticed, but if you follow the rules then the last few years browsers have become more and more consistent across the board, yes proper cross browser support of more and more features, behaving the same way. Even the newer releases from IE. It is only the old IE-versions which are the biggest problems.

Also if you look at the HTML5 standard it now defines how bad HTML should be handled.

They have described very clearly how the parsing of HTML should be handled and how it should fail.

Opera, Firefox, Webkit: so Safari and Chrome all have got a HTML5 parser in that order, IE10 supposedly has one too. I haven't looked at that part at it yet though.

veni, vedi, flash mortuus est (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409765)

Can we get rid of Flash, now?

Vector animations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409961)

What format for vector animations, such as the Homestar Runner short films, are you proposing that is superior to Flash?

Re:Vector animations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41413453)

What format for vector animations, such as the Homestar Runner short films, are you proposing that is superior to Flash?

Why not use the HTML5 canvas element? There are numerous games that demonstrate its ability.

Re:Vector animations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413521)

Why not [replace Flash with] the HTML5 canvas element?

My answer depends on your answer to these three questions:

  • How would sites that drop Flash in favor of HTML5 canvas convince users of older versions of Internet Explorer to install Google Chrome Frame?
  • What audio codec would be used with the sound that is synchronized with the vector animation? Chromium, Firefox, and Opera support only freely licensed codecs, while Internet Explorer and Safari support only MPEG codecs.
  • What tool would be used to make animations that would be played by a Canvas-based player? Keying in vector coordinates frame by frame isn't fun.

Re:Vector animations (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#41415661)

How would sites that drop Flash in favor of HTML5 canvas convince users of older versions of Internet Explorer to install Google Chrome Frame?

How much is a IE user that can't or won't install Chrome Frame worth compared to a tablet user? (and consider that Flash is deprecated on Android too).

What audio codec would be used with the sound that is synchronized with the vector animation? Chromium, Firefox, and Opera support only freely licensed codecs, while Internet Explorer and Safari support only MPEG codecs.What audio codec would be used with the sound that is synchronized with the vector animation? Chromium, Firefox, and Opera support only freely licensed codecs, while Internet Explorer and Safari support only MPEG codecs.

Both. Storage is cheap.

What tool would be used to make animations that would be played by a Canvas-based player? Keying in vector coordinates frame by frame isn't fun.

Adobe Edge Animate [adobe.com] .

Re:Vector animations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41416481)

How much is a IE user that can't or won't install Chrome Frame worth compared to a tablet user?

For sites intended to be viewed at work, probably a lot. IT departments are more likely to authorize the deployment of Flash Player than Chrome Frame because more existing sites require Flash Player than require Chrome Frame. But perhaps vector animations intended to be viewed at work (training videos?) are such an edge case that they need not be considered further.

What audio codec

Both. Storage is cheap.

Which licensed AAC encoder do you recommend?

Adobe Edge Animate

I wasn't aware that that Edge had finally been released. But the page you linked contains an 11-minute video that requires Flash to play. I requested a transcript and was told it would take several weeks. And what do you recommend for converting existing SWFs?

Re:Vector animations (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413519)

Nobody cares. People watch animations on Youtube now. It's 2012, we have the bandwidth.

5 GB/mo cap (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413627)

People watch animations on Youtube now. It's 2012, we have the bandwidth.

Not necessarily. It's 2012, people are watching on laptops and tablets, and mobile broadband plans are still limited to 5 GB per month on the whole. Even some home Internet providers, such as HughesNet and WildBlue, still have caps (or "fair access policies") that amount to single digit GB per month. I tried converting an SWF to a video, and it became ten times bigger. This means if you can watch x number of SWFs on Newgrounds on a 5 GB/mo plan, you'd need a 50 GB/mo plan to watch the same SWFs converted to video.

For another thing, YouTube videos are not interactive, unlike Flash games. Games would need to use HTML5 canvas, which has drawbacks that I mentioned in my reply to Anonymous Coward [slashdot.org] .

No... you can't. (5, Interesting)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410039)

And this is a huge problem for me as well, as I'm working on a project hoping for something better out of HTML5.

Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all. It's a simple "video" tag, which offers very little flexibility. h.264 will be the standard, VP8 is effectively dead. And that's fine, but when you have a situation where you want to auto adjust the quality based on bandwith (ala Silverlight "Smooth Streaming" or Flash), you can't do it in HTML5.

There's a project in works called MPEG DASH to do something around this, but that project is moving slower than molasses. I think people are content to keep using Flash or Silverlight, but in reality.. developers really want better options and HTML5 is already an archaic standard in a lot of senses.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411169)

By 2014 a fiber-optic Internet access will be a norm, and the question of bandwidth will be irrelevant.

We do not have dial-up now, do we?

Re:No... you can't. (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411809)

Who's "we"? And no, fiber optic internet access will not be a standard all over the world in 2014. Web standards aren't built for urban areas in first world countries only.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411959)

Yes, vinyl disks are still in use. And CDs too. But I would say the standard is MP3 and the likes. The same is about dial up, ADSL, and fiber optic.

Why to worry about, say, vinyl disks' issues? 45 or 33 rpm, nobody really cares, except some connoisseurs of retro.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412421)

First you say norm, then you say standard.

There is NO WAY that fiber boradband will be sufficiently widespread by 2014 to be considered the norm. Heck, I live in London and there's no scheduled date for when I'm going to get upgraded from my 3-5 mbit/s ADSL link to fiber. They upgraded the exchange, but haven't laid fibers to my area yet and seem to have no plans to.

It's the future and will become standard, but not in 2014 it won't.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413063)

Fibre is from plastic. It is similar to a fishing line. Not like copper cable, which is very expensive.

Re:No... you can't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41414649)

It still has to be laid down, which makes its cheaper price irrelevant.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41411905)

Yeah I thought that would fix everything to until they pulled fiber in my neighborhood. They upgraded all fo the exipment and left use with the same speed we had before. Oh we have to option to get much faster interent but they want to charge twice as much or make you go with a bundled service to get it. so ow insted of slow speed created by the equipment and transmission medium i am limited by a piece of software saying i can't go faster.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412051)

Mobile devices still need native apps, which is something I truly dislike for something as simple as video.

This new generation!! (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412165)

I tell ya, this new generation who doesn't care to optmizing anything. Lets just write the crappiest software we can and throw more money at the problem...

And no, not everyone will have fiber to their home. They may have 20mbs internet via copper but they won't have fiber unless everybody chips in $1000 per home (Not even sure that would cover it)

Re:No... you can't. (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412221)

Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all.

Well kinda yes and kinda it's not up to the HTML 5 spec to do that, since prefectly good specs exist already. IIRC the video tag requires a URL, but that is all: it doesn't specify the protocol. In other words, the video tag could just as easily accept rtp:// or rtsp:// as it chould http:/// [http] and in the former cases, all the problems are already solved.

The question is whether the browsers will actually do something sensible like support RTSP.

The HTML5 people could mandate that RTSP must be a supported protocol for conforming implementations, I suppose, but they might consider that sort of thing to be out of the scope of HTML5.

Do any browsers support RTSP directly? I would assume (shamefully) not.

It's basically trivial to do compared to the complexity of writing a browser (there are good free libraries out there), and plenty of proprietary ones but that doesn't mean anyone will actually do the sane thing.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413631)

Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all.

Why not? I may be misunderstanding what you're talking about here, but if not I'm pretty sure I could whip up some Javascript to do that in about thirty minutes. Have the javascript test the bandwidth (probably a better way, but you could just time an image download or something) and modify the source of the video tag accordingly.

Re:No... you can't. (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 2 years ago | (#41414801)

I think Darwin streaming server will do that bandwidth compensation stuff. The videos are saved in chunks and it will swap to higher or lower quality based on congestion while playing. If you're already using H.264 you're halfway there.

Re:veni, vedi, flash mortuus est (1, Flamebait)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410599)

No way dude.

I can block Flash by not installing the plug-in, or temporarily disabling it.

For some reason, every idiot web browser developer out there thinks that if a video is in HTML5, you want to download and watch it as soon as the page loads. And that nobody, nobody, could possibly want anything different.

I never thought I'd say this but... fuck HTML5. I don't want it. Give me back my Flash video.

HTML5: (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#41409875)

The Duke Nukem of markup languages

Re:HTML5: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410021)

Tentacle rape and all.

Ready for 2014 (0)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410055)

just in time when w3c will declare it obsolete in favor of the new one, HTML6.

uh oh (5, Interesting)

archen (447353) | more than 2 years ago | (#41410141)

I'm really worried. I've actually said the W3C should do everything they're going to do. It's not like the world is gaining sanity, which means I'm the one going insane.

I'm wondering what they'll be doing for the doctype declaration though, since it doesn't indicate any version (which is short sighted in my opinion)

Re:uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41410211)

See, now that you commented on that, it'll get fixed.
Thank you!

90's called and they said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41412089)

I'm surprised it's still around consider it was just a naive hack, it could easily be out done on technical merits by a single average programmer.

If these people were midwives... (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412381)

If these people we would have college age newborns!

Browser Certification? (1)

Lynchenstein (559620) | more than 2 years ago | (#41412767)

I'm not up on this stuff, but is there a way to "require" the browser makers to conform to the W3C standards? Or is it strictly voluntary in so much as they want to appeal to as many people as possible? Is the only "punishment" getting lambasted by Web developers and seeing a down-tick in usage?

At this rate .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41413459)

.... Perl 6 will be produciton-ready before we see a HTML5 standard.

I've always wondered.... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413773)

... why doesn't the W3C make a browser (or a rendering engine) that implements 100% of the spec 100% perfectly? (No, Amaya [w3.org] isn't quite it.)

Do it already, would you? (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 2 years ago | (#41413885)

I just wish they could agree on something. I spent 30 minutes the other night on the phone with my father who was trying to register some new space heater, and the website wasn't written properly, and the java script never would display properly. Once I closed out his browser and opened a different one, it then worked properly. Either that, or ban java script....Some sites, I have to work between 3 browsers, depending on which one works with a certain site.

everything will be "apps" by then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41414445)

Basically HTML 5 is getting lapped by Android's Java api, Apples Objective-C/LUA api, and even MSs .NET/Silverlight api's on the respective platforms. All of these have everything and more than what HTML 5 has. And yes they are more responsive and have better state management and a whole lot of others thing. Wouldn't it be nice if had some kind of standard local cookies...we could if local storage got adopted, but again the same stupid problems.

Steve was so right about Flash wasn't he. Yah right...he knew HTML 5 was stuck in the mud and now we yet again have lock in. I have to buy a damn MacBook just so I can write a damn page with a video, camera control, etc.

We could bang out a better version of Flash before most of these tags get fixed and have full browser support in no time flat. Is everyone so against plugins still? Can't we just get better sandboxes? Would it really be that hard for Google to bang out a Flash like plugin, with like video support, get it ported to FF and IE etc, and start promoting it. Imagine if it used Javascript as the language...or better yet itself had a language plugin system so we could write them in any language.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?