i have been getting into HTML5 lately and i really like what it represents. All of my design concepts are really geared to a real like UI platform for websites. How do you guys like HTML5 so far. I think it can get so much more better.
Its really easy to make video responsive using html5 but you still need to use media queries to load different file sizes for the various devices..
I hope you just worded that wrong. Media queries don't change what you load, just how it displays. If you're using them to show different file sizes for videos, you should know that everyone is downloading every version of the file you have, and only seeing the one that is meant for them. That's a lot of bandwidth.
I've been playing around with geolocation a lot lately and I'm quite disappointed.
Although I'm not disappointed with geolocation itself, more the browser implementation of it.
My main beefs in this regard are:
1) Browsers ignore the maximumAge attribute and consistently return cached results from half an hour ago even when I specify do not used cached results. Stupid thing is even if I use a native app to get a more recent location, the browser still serves an even older cached result. I can vouch for this in mobile Chrome and androids default mobile browser.
2) Browsers refuse to use the GPS even when enableHighAccuracy is set to true AND I've used an app to force the GPS to start AND I use watch position. I never ever get a GPS location the best I get is a Cell tower triangulation. This is on Mobile Chrome and Ice cream sandwiches default browser.
3) There should be a way to force the 'allow access' prompt. Many of my customers don't know how to, or are afraid to, change geolocation settings in their browser to allow accidentally or previously disallowed geolocation access for a website. I understand the security implications of the prompt but there should be a way to show the prompt again if they selected disallow. The use-case applies to SAAS that uses geolocation as one of the primary features.
Ok so really I'm more beefing about Chrome and Android than anything else but hey, I need consistency! I don't yet know what it's like on the likes of iPhone.
I hate non-consistency. I swear we need to create another organization like the W3C that demands consistency or there will be nothing developed for it. It makes absolutely no sense for something not to be consistent. It is such a waste of time!! You create this beautiful mural of technology, only to be smothered because some un-professional company wants differentiate its self from the crowd.
I hope you just worded that wrong.
That's where you need a server-side script that checks the browser headers for known mobile devices so you can anticipate which version to serve![]()
Can even be done with client-side coupled with AJAX.
It is the latest version with high functionality for creating a good website. HTML 5 supports css 3 and it comes with new elements and new attributes.
I like HTML 5 as the doctype is much shorter - it took me ages to type out the HTML 4 doctype...
wow, I take it you haven't read the spec...I hate non-consistency. I swear we need to create another organization like the W3C that demands consistency or there will be nothing developed for it. It makes absolutely no sense for something not to be consistent. It is such a waste of time!! You create this beautiful mural of technology, only to be smothered because some un-professional company wants differentiate its self from the crowd.
and now finally it looks as though M$ is getting onboard with html5, standards and w3... YOU want to start it up again with something new!!!The idea that HTML's evolution should be reopened was tested at a W3C workshop in 2004, where some of the principles that underlie the HTML5 work (described below), as well as the aforementioned early draft proposal covering just forms-related features, were presented to the W3C jointly by Mozilla and Opera. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that the proposal conflicted with the previously chosen direction for the Web's evolution; the W3C staff and membership voted to continue developing XML-based replacements instead.
Shortly thereafter, Apple, Mozilla, and Opera jointly announced their intent to continue working on the effort under the umbrella of a new venue called the WHATWG. A public mailing list was created, and the draft was moved to the WHATWG site. The copyright was subsequently amended to be jointly owned by all three vendors, and to allow reuse of the specification.
The WHATWG was based on several core principles, in particular that technologies need to be backwards compatible, that specifications and implementations need to match even if this means changing the specification rather than the implementations, and that specifications need to be detailed enough that implementations can achieve complete interoperability without reverse-engineering each other.
The latter requirement in particular required that the scope of the HTML5 specification include what had previously been specified in three separate documents: HTML4, XHTML1, and DOM2 HTML. It also meant including significantly more detail than had previously been considered the norm.
In 2006, the W3C indicated an interest to participate in the development of HTML5 after all, and in 2007 formed a working group chartered to work with the WHATWG on the development of the HTML5 specification. Apple, Mozilla, and Opera allowed the W3C to publish the specification under the W3C copyright, while keeping a version with the less restrictive license on the WHATWG site.
Since then, both groups have been working together.
The HTML specification published by the WHATWG is not identical to this specification. At the time of this publication, the main differences were that the WHATWG version included features not included in this W3C version: some features have been omitted, but may be considered for future revisions of HTML beyond HTML5; and other features were omitted because at the W3C they are published as separate specifications. At time of publication of this document, patches from the WHATWG spec have been merged until revision 7436 inclusive.
A separate document has been published by the W3C HTML working group to document the differences between the HTML specified in this document and the language described in the HTML4 specification. [HTMLDIFF]