I’ve mentioned a few times already that I became a big fan of P2 theme for WordPress. I currently maintain multiple installations of it, just…
After the news of Google Reader demise broke out, I, like many others, started looking for an alternative. There are many RSS readers out there,…
As most of you know, I spent most of the yesterday in Nicosia, attending the second ever TEDxNicosia event. I know quite a few people who wanted t…
Roots is a WordPress starter theme based on HTML5 Boilerplate & Bootstrap from Twitter.
Just when web developers got a little bit of hope, Slashdot reports on the bad news.
Until now the two standards bodies working on HTML5 (WHATWG and W3C ) have cooperated. An announcement by WHATWG makes it clear that this is no longer true. WHATWG is going to work on a living standard for HTML which will continue to evolve as more technologies are added. W3C is going the traditional and much more time consuming route of creating a traditional standard which WHATWG refers to as a ‘snapshot’ of their living standard. Of course now being free of W3C’s slower methods WHATWG can accelerate the pace of introducing new technologies to HTML5. Whatever happens, the future has just become more complicated — now you have to ask yourself ‘Which HTML5?’
Even if it sounds good, it is actually really bad. HTML5 is already complicated enough, and all major browsers support a different subset of it, and even those things which are supported do differ in the way of how. Splitting the standard just complicated things further. The fact that this is not exactly new, doesn’t really matter. Saying that it won’t be harmful, is silly. As is the whole point of a “living standard”. Like a few people mentioned in Slashdot comments, “living standard” is an oxymoron. The whole point of standard is to provide a static point of reference. Splitting is not a solution to the problem. It’s quite the opposite. Consider this xkcd comics for illustration, which is nothing but the truth.
A colleague sent me this link to a collection of parallax scrolling website designs. Some of them are really awesome, especially considering the fact that they are implemented in HTML5 – no flash or other proprietary plugin required. I particularly liked how the car assembles and disassembles on the Smart USA website and how the glass of beer empties and refills on the Smokey Bones website. Unbelievable, creative, and inspirational!
SlideShare is a social network where people share presentations and other documents. If you ever attended any conferences, talks or group meetings, chances are the slides for that were uploaded and made available on the SlideShare. Until now, though, using those slides was a bit awkward, since they were always converted to Flash. Your browser had to have a plugin, it was difficult or impossible to copy-paste text from slides, search was weird, and access from the mobile was very limited. Gladly, SlideShare announced that they are moving from Flash to HTML5 which by itself should fix all those nuances and provide for some more useful features.
Here are their reasons for switching:
- The exact same HTML5 documents work on the iPhone / iPad, Android phones/tablets, and modern desktop browsers. This is great from an operations perspective. This saves us from extra storage costs, and maximizes the cache hit ration on our CDN (since a desktop request fills the cache for a mobile request, and vice-versa). It’s also great from a software engineering perspective, because we can put all our energy into supporting one format and making it really great.
- Documents load 30% faster and are 40% smaller. ‘Nuff said on that front, faster is ALWAYS better.
- The documents are semantic and accessible. Google can parse it and index the documents, and so can any other bot, scraper, spider, or screen-reader. This means that you can write code that does interesting things with the text on the slideshare pages. You can even copy and paste text from a SlideShare document, something that was always a pain with Flash.
Read the full story to learn about some of the difficulties they experienced during this migration.
Here is a quote directly from Google’s Inside Search blog:
We now support markup that enables websites to publicly link within their site from content to author pages. For example, if an author at The New York Times has written dozens of articles, using this markup, the webmaster can connect these articles with a New York Times author page. An author page describes and identifies the author, and can include things like the author’s bio, photo, articles and other links.
If you run a website with authored content, you’ll want to learn about authorship markup in our help center. The markup uses existing standards such as HTML5 (rel=”author”) and XFN (rel=”me”) to enable search engines and other web services to identify works by the same author across the web. If you’re already doing structured data markup using microdata from schema.org, we’ll interpret that authorship information as well.
[...]
We know that great content comes from great authors, and we’re looking closely at ways this markup could help us highlight authors and rank search results.
In simple terms, this means that you should make sure that all your content – no matter where it is published – identifies you as an author. This will help link all your content together, create your author profile, and use that as yet another criteria in ranking and searching. Those of you publishing with WordPress shouldn’t worry at all – adding authorship is either already done or will take a minor modification to the theme. WordPress provided both author pages and XFN markup out of the box for years.
Here is a quote for you on browser compatibility from an excellent book Diving Into HTML 5, which is available online.
The last time I tried to count, there were 5 doctypes that triggered “almost standards mode,” and 73 that triggered “quirks mode.” But I probably missed some, and I’m not even going to talk about the crazy shit that Internet Explorer 8 does to switch between its four — four! — different rendering modes. Here’s a flowchart. Kill it. Kill it with fire.
And just in the flowchart link will break anytime soon, here is a copy of the image.
There is a lot of rumble going around the Web now on the future of Adobe Flash. Some say that Flash is here to stay. Others believe that when HTML5 will be a norm, Flash will die out. Others believe in some other technology or in the mix or in none of the above. But everyone has something to say.
I just read a lengthy Slashdot discussion of this post by John Dowdell, who is working for Adobe in San Francisco, and who is not worried about Flash future.
There’s really no “HTML vs Flash” war. There are sure people inciting to create such a war, and individual developers may have strong practical reasons to choose one technology over another, but at corporate levels that drive strategy, all delivery channels are important Adobe territory, whether SWF or HTML or video or documents or paper or ebook or e-mag or film or packaging or whatever. Adobe profits by making it easier for creatives to reach their audiences.
On the other hand, a few month ago, back in Karlsruhe, Germany, I was in the audience for the keynote speech by Patrick Lauke of Opera fame. During that speech he presented a few developments – HTML5 and CSS3 among others – that clearly showed that there is a strong alternative coming for at least some of Flash’s functionality. How soon? The time will tell.
And yet there was yet another important announcement on the subject today. Google Chrome releases blog mentioned a new version of the browser, released today, with integrated Adobe Flash plugin. There was a link for more detailed explanations of such a change to Chromium blog. It looks like there is something bigger going on:
[...] we are working with Adobe, Mozilla and the broader community to help define the next generation browser plug-in API. This new API aims to address the shortcomings of the current browser plug-in model.
I think that whatever the upcoming alternatives are, Adobe Flash is here to stay. It won’t necessarily stay as we know it now. After all we now know a better Flash than we knew initially (read some Adobe Flash history). But it surely is not going anywhere any time soon.
And if you need examples of stale technologies on the web, think Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. It’s over 10 years old. Everybody hates. Even Microsoft is advising everyone to upgrade. Better technology exists for years now. And yet we still have MSIE6 hanging around and no apparent way of getting rid of it. And Adobe Flash, with all its limitations and shortcomings, is way better than MSIE6.
A List Apart has a little introduction into HTML 5. They explain the tough process of crafting the standard, how different parties interact, and what they are trying to achieve. It all sounds pretty interesting if you have no idea about HTML 5. Also, it all sounds pretty interesting until you get to one of the final paragraphs (emphasis is mine):
Work on HTML 5 is rapidly progressing, yet it is still expected to continue for several years. Due to the requirement to produce test cases and achieve interoperable implementations, current estimates have work finishing in around ten to fifteen years.
Excuse me? They are working on a standard for the Web, one of the fastest growing, expanding, and developing areas of IT industry, which itself is one of the fastest developing industries of the modern world, and they are planning to finish in 10 or 15 years?!! Hello? Wake up!
Just take a look around. See how this place is different even from two years ago. See how dramatically different it is from five years ago. See how it is unrecognizably different from what it was ten years ago. Try to find a living human being who even remembers how it was fifteen years ago… Guys, what are you doing over there?
No matter how well you plan things today, no matter to how many people in the field you talk today, there is absolutely no way to predict how things will be in ten or fifteen years. Trying to predict this will hard enough job for a single head. Getting a few heads to agree on how this will be is beyond impossible!
If that’s how long HTML 5 will need to come out, we can just drop the effort right now. If it will even come out, it will be totally useless, because people won’t wait for it. If you think that we are moving fast now, you haven’t seen nothing yet. We are just starting. We are in the 1950s of the automobile industry. Web is still a very much foreign concept for our society. Wait a few more years when it will get more natural, and you’ll see what are the real power and speed of development.
Nobody is going to wait for a bunch of guys to agree on something that nobody knows how will come out. People will just come up with their own solutions to their problems. They will aggregate, re-factor, and re-optimize those solutions until they solve the majority of problems. And then they will move on to the next stack of problems. And will go on and on. Forever…
How important is HTML 5? It is needed, yes. But right now. Not in five years, not in ten, and not in fifteen. The problems it tries to solve are the problems of today. If it’s not coming out shortly, you can just ignore it altogether. There will be another solution…
