]]>
molly.com
Tuesday 30 June 2009
HTML5: Best of the Minute
Damn, you cannot please all the browsers all the time. Funny, those browser beasts. They do stuff, then they do it again and change it. Or, they do it and you can’t talk about it.
If my Baloney has a first name, it’s HTML5! This is the best I can do at the moment, please and thank you.
Some sort of realistic support charts on a few HTML5 things I think are interesting.
Just remember, I didn’t lie and tell you I was right. Because as I quoted from Cowboy Wisdom in my #atmedia talk recently:
Never trust a man who agrees with you. He’s probably wrong.
Comment at will.
Filed under: HTML5, browsers, conferences, cults of personality, humor, software, standards, w3c, web design and development, whatwg
Posted by: Molly | 01:48 | Comments (16)
I really am a bit disappointed by all of the inconsistency between all of the browsers for contentEditable. Sadly IE is the only browser that is consistent with the mark up that it generates and can work with, even if I hate all of the font tags. Heck, I think it is almost inaccurate to say ‘Yes’ for Firefox given how incredibly buggy it is. Opera was generally good (would appear to lose the selection when you clicked a drop down to change a font size on my editor, but as soon as you selected a value it would re-select itself and do the command so it was okay). Safari and Chrome generally did there own thing.
Sadly it’s all of this that has led me to just move on to TinyMCE (after writing my own plug-in to turn it into a pseudo-contentEditable). =/
Man, would it really be so hard to at least start on the various new input types for the forms? I’d love to at least have type=”email” and type=”url” supported. And datalists are awesome!
Until the various browser makers can all decide to support a single file format for the video tag, it’s not going to take off as a Flash replacement. And I really want it to. Right now you need to create 3 file formats (mp4, ogv, and flv, any more?) to get a properly working version.
Molly, Firefox 3.5 is coming out in a few hours and the current stable version of Chrome is 2.something.
Brian, why flv? Not even Flash needs flv anymore. Video hosts are phasing it out. flv is dead. It’s true that you need both ogv and mp4, but with those two you also have older browsers covered quite well (with Flash and Quicktime fallbacks for mp4 and a Java Cortado fallback for OGG). The dilemma is between Theora (free, not widely supported, not state of the art) and H.264 (good, ubiquitous, looming licensing fee), and even if the WHATWG had decided to require a codec in the spec, neither them nor browser vendors could resolve that dilemma.
I repeat “Just remember, I didn’t lie and tell you I was right.”
Actually, the patent issues go deeper than that. Even though Ogg is open source doesn’t mean that distributions/implementations are acceptable. Patents are very complicated beasties. I’m no lawyer, not by a long shot, but from every discussion I’ve heard both in and out of the W3C, when it comes to video and audio codecs, and fonts, patents are the work of the devil and this may take a very long time to figure out. Hopefully, not. We’ll see.
Remember again: This provided as is, as was current a week or so ago. It’s more for discussion and reference than anything, and as I say in the document, please refer elsewhere for more up-to-date and specific information.
Working on a moving target of implementation like this would be interesting, but would take a huge amount of time on an almost daily basis. Unfortunately, that’s time I don’t have. See Alexis’ site noted in the doc for that sort of thing. How he’s keeping up with that I have no idea, but it’s a very good resource!
M
This is good information and I hope it is maintained.
I trust this data is consistent with the related page WHAT WG maintains: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Implementations_in_Web_browsers
Also, it would also be useful to add a time stamp such as “Last update: YY-MM-DD”.
I was going to suggest shading the backgrounds of rows that were “safe” across all browsers, but then realized that coloring one or two rows (taking into account the contentEditable implementation issue) would look silly.
Thanks this is good information…
Touch-in technology will kill all browsers. What language should we learn then?
“Just remember, I didn’t lie and tell you I was right.” ))
I completely agree, what should we choose?
“Touch-in technology”
And what’s about the GPhones and IPhones?
what kind of HTML will we need in Future?
I think that there are too many versions of web scripting.
Many different versions of HTML, PHP, ASP, XHTML etc. I think one day we are going to have to slim it down and work out a way of combining them.
Also, we need a browser that can support everything, as they all display things differently, how can we know what to choose?
Nice post, thanks
nice pots tenks
Nice post, thanks
very good thanks you
thanks you
HTML5 is the best
Ty for post is nice..