can we rename this forum "the pissing contest" already?

5/11/2010 11:27:56 AM

There is no contest. Windows/Silverlight/IE own all.

/thread

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : anyone who claims otherwise is just trying to be a hipster.]

5/11/2010 11:28:41 AM

yea hipsters do tend to like bad "languages" like html/js/css/php/etc...

5/11/2010 12:01:35 PM

I know right! Why everything isn't in .Net or silverlight is a mystery to me.

5/11/2010 12:09:45 PM

I hear that now is a great time to be a COBOL programmer.

5/11/2010 12:11:20 PM

Add CBS to the list of sites going HTML5. They announced that they are turning their entire video content on cbs.com to be HTML5 friendly.

The advantage of this over ABC's app is that you can view it on any device/browser that supports HTML5.

(if it hasn't already been posted)


So is facebook video.

[Edited on May 11, 2010 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2010 4:28:10 PM

Quote :

"So is facebook video."

No they're not

And if they are, they're denying it publicly

5/11/2010 4:34:28 PM

^but they are. All new videos uploaded are HTML5 friendly but only on devices that require it. Its not up to the user what format to watch.

5/11/2010 4:36:22 PM

Quote :

"According to Facebook, the company is not testing HTML5. Facebook told us in an email that, "All new videos are encoded in h264 format, so we're playing videos natively in the iPad since it supports h264-encoded videos. It will load them full-screen, similar to what it does for YouTube videos." Facebook rolled this out last week."

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_testing_html5_video_for_ipad_apparently_not.php

5/11/2010 4:37:29 PM

I saw that too...I also read an article that said they had a 'source' but either way, some videos work on the iDevice...

5/11/2010 4:39:35 PM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but

Quote :

"we're playing videos natively in the iPad since it supports h264-encoded videos"

5/11/2010 4:45:38 PM

Yeah but not using html5 tags. They're doing what we did a few years ago at gamevee allowing the browser to decide how to play back the video.

5/11/2010 5:16:02 PM

ugh, is it 2022 yet?

7/21/2010 3:49:42 PM

No, but once it is, you'll have what was supposed to be HTML5, but still somehow sporting a different feature set in each browser while everyone crows about XHTML2.0 and how it's going to revolutionize the web because of semantic this and abstracted that. It will probably drop support for tables as well, just because everyone hates them so much.

Then HTML6 will come out and everyone will realize that <tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> was an infinitely more civilized way to actually way to put things in three columns side by side, instead of importing about 50 lines of hacked CSS.

At no point will anyone understand exactly what the hell <dl>, <dd>, and <dt> are supposed to actually do though. Or xhtml+xml.

7/21/2010 10:46:55 PM

moron, from back in page 1, the "bytecode" version of the HTML5 stuff is known as the codec from your own browser or operating system, and it will come pre-installed, kinda like how you don't need to run a plugin to view most images anymore (then again TIFFs...)

7/22/2010 12:59:30 AM

use silverlight, problem solved.

7/22/2010 10:03:33 AM

someone is missing the point

7/23/2010 6:26:40 AM

Quote :

"Then HTML6 will come out and everyone will realize that <tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> was an infinitely more civilized way to actually way to put things in three columns side by side, instead of importing about 50 lines of hacked CSS."

i get your point, but i agree with the powers that be that tables should be used exclusively for tabular data

site layout is not tabular data...divs are neither complex nor difficult

7/23/2010 7:46:30 AM

Excessive divs and classes are the only solution to table-based layout; HTML5 provides no such thing as semantic markup, I mean what's a nav, section, header, article, footer, or aside?

7/23/2010 3:08:08 PM

"excessive" is subjective, but i could argue that you'd need roughly the same number of cells for the same layout

7/23/2010 3:10:14 PM

on the real, Silverlight has a very powerful and easy to use array of options for layout design. css layout is a pain in the ass compared to Silverlight. you can't achieve csszengarden.com type stuff as easily with silverlight (not that it's easy in css either), but who tries to apply dozens of stylesheets to a single markup anyways

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2010 3:44:15 PM

^^^

The problem is that while it may make your code nicer to look at, there's no real functional display difference between a <header> tag and a <div> tag. Either way you're still adding in the same 50 lines of code you are now, except you can go "header { }" instead of "#header { }"

I agree fully that tables shouldn't be used for layout anymore. They do, however, have a pretty good method of saying "I want this here in relation to the other elements around me". Right now if you want to make a 3 column fluid layout, it's quicker, smaller, and easier to just create a table than do it with DIVs/CSS. The main reason to not do it, of course, is "Tables are for tabular data, not layout", but if you ignore the name of the tag it is has many enviable properties.

7/23/2010 3:58:26 PM

anybody doing any production html5 and/or css3 stuff yet?

11/5/2010 9:39:51 PM

I use CSS3 all over the damn place. And it's great, because I've always hated having to rely so heavily on photoshop.

Developing sites marked up in HTML5 is too much trouble to be practical at this point.

11/6/2010 7:58:55 AM