In preparation for a website redesign, I'm currently reading up on HTML5 and consequently CSS3. Is anybody else here looking into "upgrading" to these new standards?
HTML5 anybody?
- Thread starter DJ Ducky
- Start date
The problem is that your site needs to degrade gracefully in older browsers. It will be a LONG time before you can safely assume the vast majority of users will have an HTML5 compliant browser. In the meantime you will have to code 2 versions of the site. Right now Flash has much better penetration and support than HTML5 does, and will have in the near future.
Actually, modern browsers already support at least some of the new semantic elements and features that HTML5 has to offer. I am reading Mark Pilgrim's book on the subject and highly recommend it: http://www.amazon.com/HTML5-Up-Runn...6027/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317006833&sr=8-1
In this book, he explains what all works (and does not yet work) in the different browsers, as of last year when the book was published.
The beauty of HTML5 and the way modern browsers work is that all webpages that are not tweaked to meet HTML5 standards still work. There is no need to code 2 versions of a site. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty here (that's what the book is for); I just want to know if anyone else is planning a conversion yet.
I just finished reading: http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-H...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317008047&sr=1-1
I found it informative, but the humor was a bit hokey. I will check out the one you suggested too.
SOME is the key term. It might as well be NONE since you can't rely on support for any of the features.
Also, can you define what is meant by "modern browsers"?
I found it informative, but the humor was a bit hokey. I will check out the one you suggested too.
SOME is the key term. It might as well be NONE since you can't rely on support for any of the features.
Also, can you define what is meant by "modern browsers"?
In the book I read the authors kept talking about how great some features were, and how you could use browser detection to mimic HTML5 features. That is more of what I meant by two versions of the site.
If I have to use a complex JS hack to implement an HTML5 feature, why not just use the JS hack in the first place. Or why not just use something like the jQuery framework in the first place.
Can you reference any instances of how HTML5 goodies degrade gracefully in HTML4?
If I have to use a complex JS hack to implement an HTML5 feature, why not just use the JS hack in the first place. Or why not just use something like the jQuery framework in the first place.
Can you reference any instances of how HTML5 goodies degrade gracefully in HTML4?
DjDennis
RIP- My Dad (2011), Sister (2013) and Mum (2017)
What exactly are you trying to do with HTML5 that you can't do with Flash and/or AJAX?
And by modern browsers I believe he means the main 3, at their current versions. Chrome, IE9, and FF3 all support HTML5 afaik. I know IE9 does for sure, I beta tested for it.
But I still don't see the need to upgrade anything to html5 until it is more mainstream and widely accepted with most sites. I am not extensively familiar with html5, so I don't know it's advantages over flash/ajax, but that is why I asked my original question, so that I might better understand the appeal of it. If it is something that is impressive enough, I might learn it right away.... for instance, when I was still coding in JS and HTML, PHP came out and I knew right away that it would blow everything else away, so I started coding in that.
I am hoping it is the same situation.... that html5 is something so mind-blowing that you just know instantly that it is going to take over like php did. The only experience I have had in html5 was the demo they gave us with the beta of IE9, which was just a movie that you could interact with, much like flash. So that is why I am wondering what it's advantages may be over flash and ajax.
And by modern browsers I believe he means the main 3, at their current versions. Chrome, IE9, and FF3 all support HTML5 afaik. I know IE9 does for sure, I beta tested for it.
But I still don't see the need to upgrade anything to html5 until it is more mainstream and widely accepted with most sites. I am not extensively familiar with html5, so I don't know it's advantages over flash/ajax, but that is why I asked my original question, so that I might better understand the appeal of it. If it is something that is impressive enough, I might learn it right away.... for instance, when I was still coding in JS and HTML, PHP came out and I knew right away that it would blow everything else away, so I started coding in that.
I am hoping it is the same situation.... that html5 is something so mind-blowing that you just know instantly that it is going to take over like php did. The only experience I have had in html5 was the demo they gave us with the beta of IE9, which was just a movie that you could interact with, much like flash. So that is why I am wondering what it's advantages may be over flash and ajax.
Suit yourselves. I am reworking my website, which is simply done in crappy HTML with some CSS3 to assist, so it makes sense to convert to the new standards. You all can do what you want. I was just wondering who (if anybody) is also converting. Apparently, nobody.
Sorry for the useless thread, mods!
Sorry for the useless thread, mods!
DJ Jynxx:
Easier to implement user interface elements. Offline storage. Low resource and easy video playback. A few other goodies.
A lot of HTML5 can be accomplished with current JS libraries and 3rd party plugins (ie: flash video). In fact, the authors of the book I read talked about using those for backward compatibility. We even bother with HTML5 if you have to use the hacks anyway? The exception to this is definitely offline storage. That looks powerful.
Browser support sounds as though it is very inconsistent. Again, if it's inconsistent, then it's useless IMHO.
Easier to implement user interface elements. Offline storage. Low resource and easy video playback. A few other goodies.
A lot of HTML5 can be accomplished with current JS libraries and 3rd party plugins (ie: flash video). In fact, the authors of the book I read talked about using those for backward compatibility. We even bother with HTML5 if you have to use the hacks anyway? The exception to this is definitely offline storage. That looks powerful.
Browser support sounds as though it is very inconsistent. Again, if it's inconsistent, then it's useless IMHO.
Thanks Troy.... and I agree. I haven't heard of this new HTML and would like to know more... like what it offers over and above what I do now.
Thats exactly what my question was too...
Troy, what do you mean by offline storage? Do you mean as in looking at a site offline? Or how the current (read: archaic) cache system / temp files system works?