You probably think HTML5 is like HTML 4 because you’re an idiot dude!
May 12, 2010 6:22 PM Subscribe
Liar! I'm drunk and I don't know what you're on about...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:32 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:32 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is probably the most sober read of the whole HTML5 vs. Flash debate I've read yet
posted by localhuman at 6:34 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by localhuman at 6:34 PM on May 12, 2010
This is a great post because my site is written in HTML5 and I am currently drunk. That is all.
posted by sciurus at 6:55 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by sciurus at 6:55 PM on May 12, 2010
Why do I like donkeys so much?
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 6:55 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 6:55 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is good. I'm both interested in learning about HTML 5, and I'm drunk!
posted by clarknova at 7:05 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by clarknova at 7:05 PM on May 12, 2010
Heh:
Look at all those h1s! It’s like they took h1 and were like… GUITAR SOLO!
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:06 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Look at all those h1s! It’s like they took h1 and were like… GUITAR SOLO!
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:06 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is probably the most sober read of the whole HTML5 vs. Flash debate I've read yet
Well, the thing about the HTML5 Vs Flash debate is... it's stupid and it shouldn't exist. HTML/CSS/JS should be used for things that HTML/CSS/JS is good at, Flash should be used for things that Flash is good at. Capabilities of currently widely used browsers should be a consideration, as should futureproofing for new browsers.
The "debate" is forced by the whole video thing, where widespread use of flash drives Mac users into a rage and leaves small blue boxes for iPad/iPhone users... TBH I don't think it's a particularly good use of flash even when your OS doesn't have problems with it, and the video tag should be phased in as the preferred method quickly as possible. It is however extremely an extremely convenient way of throwing video onto a page and also covers users looking at the page who don't have the use of the video tag - IE users basically, and that still counts for a lot I'm afraid - and users without the right codec - Firefox users,covered previously.
Anyhow, add in various degrees of OS war baggage and tribalism to the video and you get a whole bunch of ill informed and angry "debate" that isn't debate at all. And that's even before you get to Jobs and his war against Adobe (best discussed elsewhere but likely to go around in pointless circles).
posted by Artw at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
Well, the thing about the HTML5 Vs Flash debate is... it's stupid and it shouldn't exist. HTML/CSS/JS should be used for things that HTML/CSS/JS is good at, Flash should be used for things that Flash is good at. Capabilities of currently widely used browsers should be a consideration, as should futureproofing for new browsers.
The "debate" is forced by the whole video thing, where widespread use of flash drives Mac users into a rage and leaves small blue boxes for iPad/iPhone users... TBH I don't think it's a particularly good use of flash even when your OS doesn't have problems with it, and the video tag should be phased in as the preferred method quickly as possible. It is however extremely an extremely convenient way of throwing video onto a page and also covers users looking at the page who don't have the use of the video tag - IE users basically, and that still counts for a lot I'm afraid - and users without the right codec - Firefox users,covered previously.
Anyhow, add in various degrees of OS war baggage and tribalism to the video and you get a whole bunch of ill informed and angry "debate" that isn't debate at all. And that's even before you get to Jobs and his war against Adobe (best discussed elsewhere but likely to go around in pointless circles).
posted by Artw at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
And that's even before you get to Jobs and his war against Adobe
I think you got that the wrong way 'round. Adobe was feeling its oats, and likely resentful for its reliance on Apple for its upswing, when Apple was on the ropes. They've been treating Apple as a second class customer ever since. Gleefully. Despite the fact that half their customers (last I heard) were on Macs.
So, yeah, there's your OS baggage. Only it's not so much OS baggage.
Flash sucking is a different, but related, can of worms.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:22 PM on May 12, 2010
I think you got that the wrong way 'round. Adobe was feeling its oats, and likely resentful for its reliance on Apple for its upswing, when Apple was on the ropes. They've been treating Apple as a second class customer ever since. Gleefully. Despite the fact that half their customers (last I heard) were on Macs.
So, yeah, there's your OS baggage. Only it's not so much OS baggage.
Flash sucking is a different, but related, can of worms.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:22 PM on May 12, 2010
I don't give a shit just make it as easy to make a rich application on the web as it is to make in something like Cocoa, argh why is this so fucking hard? I have television on my phone, but if I were to make an application for the web even the most trivial things make it feel like 1995. Oh great, e-mail validation without javascript? Oh big fucking whoop.
posted by geoff. at 7:44 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by geoff. at 7:44 PM on May 12, 2010
I enjoyed this.
But then, I am also fond of a drink now and then.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:49 PM on May 12, 2010
But then, I am also fond of a drink now and then.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:49 PM on May 12, 2010
Awesome!
posted by brundlefly at 8:23 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by brundlefly at 8:23 PM on May 12, 2010
Lightweights. I had thirteen shots of tequila tonight and I'm not even tipsy or breathing anymore.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:52 PM on May 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:52 PM on May 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Perfect timing! I'm on my 4th glass of wine and this made perfect sense to me.
A few days ago I was verifying my MSDN purchase/activation code to a Microsoft support girl over the phone, and it started with QQQ... try saying that out loud and not laugh.
posted by urbandude at 9:34 PM on May 12, 2010
A few days ago I was verifying my MSDN purchase/activation code to a Microsoft support girl over the phone, and it started with QQQ... try saying that out loud and not laugh.
posted by urbandude at 9:34 PM on May 12, 2010
You should see me discuss x86 assembly in the middle of an ether binge.
posted by chairface at 9:48 PM on May 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by chairface at 9:48 PM on May 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Agreed Artw, although on video I think people should use what runs best, and right now that's not always HTML5 even where it is supported. What people want is fast, smooth video -- 99% of people don't care if that comes from HTML5 or Flash. 10.1 is pretty impressive, some of the new HTML5 video implementations are impressive... it's an interesting race.
posted by wildcrdj at 9:56 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by wildcrdj at 9:56 PM on May 12, 2010
some of the new HTML5 video implementations are impressive...
Yeah, you can blow video up!
posted by tellurian at 10:25 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, you can blow video up!
posted by tellurian at 10:25 PM on May 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
The problem with HTML5 isn't that the WHATWG cabal is drunk. It's that they're drinking some weird hooch that's laced with methanol, only instead of making them physically blind, it's made them blind to anything but their viewpoint.
posted by dw at 10:33 PM on May 12, 2010
posted by dw at 10:33 PM on May 12, 2010
Look at all those h1s! It’s like they took h1 and were like… GUITAR SOLO!Wait. Are you telling me I wasn't supposed to use the h1 tag wherever I wanted in the past?
That’s crazy right? I mean you can use h1 because according to the HTML5 spec it’s semantically correct to do this because articles designate a new hierarchy within the hierarchy. It’s like the MATRIX but in HTML form yeah.
posted by delmoi at 12:00 AM on May 13, 2010
So cookies are eventually going to go away too, but not those cookies because I was totally worried for a second when I read that. But yeah, no not those cookies, no.whew
posted by Phssthpok at 12:26 AM on May 13, 2010
Kenny Meyers brings a consistently funny face-slap to web standards/design/tech debates. If you enjoyed that one, might I recommend my very favorite wherein he rants about boobs, sex, and puritans as a response to Cameron Moll's boycott of American Apparel.
A funny guy, a funny read, and a pretty intelligent look at the whole debate (ya know, just like the subject of this FPP).
posted by revmitcz at 1:08 AM on May 13, 2010
A funny guy, a funny read, and a pretty intelligent look at the whole debate (ya know, just like the subject of this FPP).
posted by revmitcz at 1:08 AM on May 13, 2010
I'm 4 pints in, drinking on my own at the pub, and a web-centric programmer, but this did nothing for me... :(
posted by russm at 2:30 AM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by russm at 2:30 AM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Well, the thing about the HTML5 Vs Flash debate is... it's stupid and it shouldn't existabout standards and openness. HTML/CSS/JSOpen technologies should be used for things. that HTML/CSS/JS is good at, Flash should be used for things that Flash is good at
posted by DU at 4:43 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by DU at 4:43 AM on May 13, 2010
i was hoping this would be more like the funny or die 'drunk history' videos. less code, more puking.
posted by fuzzypantalones at 5:45 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by fuzzypantalones at 5:45 AM on May 13, 2010
From mazola's link in the iPad thread: HTML5 Readiness Infographic created using HTML5 (with data from When can I use)
posted by Artw at 7:56 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by Artw at 7:56 AM on May 13, 2010
Wildfox - The Wild Fox project ('Wild Fox', or Wx for short), is a project aimed at releasing builds of Firefox which include features the Firefox builds do not include, including AVC (h.264) support with HTML 5 video.
posted by Artw at 8:01 AM on May 16, 2010
posted by Artw at 8:01 AM on May 16, 2010
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/05/handy-guide-to-detecting-support-for-html5/
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on May 16, 2010
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on May 16, 2010
Holy shit, I tried to have a look at the animation Artw links in Safari on Windows, and it crashed my operating system right back to the metal, no BSOD, just kaboom!
I can't wait to start writing CSS that makes peoples computers reboot! ;-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:46 PM on May 18, 2010
I can't wait to start writing CSS that makes peoples computers reboot! ;-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:46 PM on May 18, 2010
Safari on Windows
Are you insane?
(Works as static version on FF for me, animates somewhat jerkily on Chrome with some odd screen artifacts, IE rather amusingly just renders everything as squares)
posted by Artw at 4:59 PM on May 18, 2010
Are you insane?
(Works as static version on FF for me, animates somewhat jerkily on Chrome with some odd screen artifacts, IE rather amusingly just renders everything as squares)
posted by Artw at 4:59 PM on May 18, 2010
From the comments:
Super cool! Only, Pluto isn’t a planet anymore…
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on May 18, 2010
Super cool! Only, Pluto isn’t a planet anymore…
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on May 18, 2010
Are you insane?
Not clinically. In my defence, it said the animation worked best on Safari, and I have it installed for testing dev sites...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 PM on May 18, 2010
Not clinically. In my defence, it said the animation worked best on Safari, and I have it installed for testing dev sites...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 PM on May 18, 2010
Heh.
No one means Windows Safari when they're talking about Safari, do they? It's shorthand for "Safari on the mac, and some other webkit browser on your PC".
I'm really not sure what the point of Windows Safari was. I think possibly it's just made out of leftover parts of iTunes, or was built as a joke or insult, or something along those lines.
posted by Artw at 5:30 PM on May 18, 2010
No one means Windows Safari when they're talking about Safari, do they? It's shorthand for "Safari on the mac, and some other webkit browser on your PC".
I'm really not sure what the point of Windows Safari was. I think possibly it's just made out of leftover parts of iTunes, or was built as a joke or insult, or something along those lines.
posted by Artw at 5:30 PM on May 18, 2010
On iPhone the actual rendering is slow as hell, with some kind of jaggy pre-rendering of the paths of the planets, but the actual animation works pretty well.
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on May 18, 2010
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on May 18, 2010
I'm really not sure what the point of Windows Safari was.
Because one of the limitations of building sites for Apple devices is that most people, even developers and designers, use WinPC computers, and testing on Mac required shelling out bucks for a Mac of some sort. Porting Safari to Windows gave designers and developers one less reason not to design for the Mac (and then gave them the ability to design/test for iPhone without dropping cash on an iPhone or iTouch as well. And remember, Safari was ported to Windows before Chrome was announced, and when Safari was ported there was no iTunes store. Apple was actively telling people to develop web applications for Safari (I know, I was in one of those training sessions).
Porting Safari had nothing to do with Apple wanting browser market share. It had everything to do with making developing for the Mac and iPhone as easy as possible.
posted by dw at 10:34 PM on May 24, 2010
Because one of the limitations of building sites for Apple devices is that most people, even developers and designers, use WinPC computers, and testing on Mac required shelling out bucks for a Mac of some sort. Porting Safari to Windows gave designers and developers one less reason not to design for the Mac (and then gave them the ability to design/test for iPhone without dropping cash on an iPhone or iTouch as well. And remember, Safari was ported to Windows before Chrome was announced, and when Safari was ported there was no iTunes store. Apple was actively telling people to develop web applications for Safari (I know, I was in one of those training sessions).
Porting Safari had nothing to do with Apple wanting browser market share. It had everything to do with making developing for the Mac and iPhone as easy as possible.
posted by dw at 10:34 PM on May 24, 2010
« Older In the '60s, all the Album Covers moved, or was it... | The Tea Party Jacobins Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ryoshu at 6:31 PM on May 12, 2010