What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
86 Comments
- Jimmysh, on 10/29/2009, -2/+115Deserves a fp for no ads and useful content.
- Liam000, on 10/29/2009, -5/+84I will be as happy when Flash dies as I was when real player died
- ptFoe, on 10/29/2009, -5/+40What does it mean?
IE still sucks. - manogamez, on 10/29/2009, -2/+35It's so beautiful I'm going to cry. HTML5 is my BFF!
- noahgelman, on 10/29/2009, -1/+26And all on one page
- Bloodwine, on 10/29/2009, -2/+24Two things:
1. using full closing tags makes it easier to read and debug your HTML
2. using full closing tags makes it easier to parse your HTML by external apps. - GlitchEnzo, on 10/29/2009, -0/+18No. <audio>, <video>, and <canvas> tags will take its place.
- InTheUnion, on 10/29/2009, -2/+19Just looking quickly at that page: this is definitely not the kind Digg material that many people will go after. Where are the GIFs of floating dogs?
- Laminarcissus, on 10/29/2009, -0/+15Why? Can I somehow turn them in for valuable prizes?
- svivian, on 10/29/2009, -3/+15Fantastic article... so far. TL;DR. (Bookmarked it though so will read later.)
- alampervez, on 10/29/2009, -4/+14There is nothing wrong with it. If you like it, you can keep it.
- shinkou, on 10/30/2009, -1/+11Very neat and easy to get explanations. Dugg!
Then there are 2 things that I've decided to do after reading the article:
- use HTML5 only from now on.
- ditch IE exclusively and unconditionally. - duerra, on 10/29/2009, -1/+93. HTML largely tries to conform to XML standards, which the above syntax does not.
- Angostura, on 10/29/2009, -0/+8Assuming you're not trolling, I think that page explains very nicely why HTML 5 is all about a lot *lot* more than just media playback.
- Phatlip012, on 10/30/2009, -0/+7If you're designing your websites in iWeb, chances are html purists have ABSOLUTELY no interest in seeing your source code. Simply looking at the messy, and ridiculously inefficient code will piss them off enough.
iWeb sucks. - Ghoul, on 10/29/2009, -0/+7I interpret it to mean that HTML5 is more capable of describing the contents of a document in an easily approachable way. Many of the new elements help reduce the div + id/class soup that we currently suffer from. It allows applications to easily figure out the context of parts of the document content.
- Langford, on 10/30/2009, -0/+7@GlitchEnzo
I fear that may just be optimistic wishful thinking. It could be a decade before IE catches up to that. - Laminarcissus, on 10/29/2009, -27/+34Just curious, so I'd like to take a little survey (no lying!):
Please digg this up if you don't feel like you have a solid grasp of how "semantic" is used in this context, and digg it down if the meaning and implications of "semantic" are crystal clear. - Briones07, on 10/29/2009, -0/+7It's supposed to be a semi-colon; now you know.
- captininsanity, on 10/29/2009, -0/+7They are exchangeable for whole internets. I forget what the current exchange rate is right now though...
- Briones07, on 10/29/2009, -0/+7I actually liked how easy the font and spacing was on the eyes.
- 471776, on 10/30/2009, -1/+7Flash isn't going anywhere. The new tags will probably remove a lot of the load over time, but it will be years before HTML5 browsers have sufficient penetration to allow them to replace Flash. And even then, Flash is more customizable and can do a lot more than any other platform, so it's not going to disappear any time soon.
- jessemoya, on 10/29/2009, -0/+6That was possibly the best written technical article I have ever read. This guy is ace!
- spworm, on 10/29/2009, -3/+9<!-- I design all my websites in iWeb, but always leave an annoying comment to piss off the html purists -->
- rmxz, on 10/29/2009, -1/+7My responses....
1. easier to read? I disagree. "(p This is (b bold) and this is (h2 a header). )" looks easier to me to read than "<p>This is <b>bold</b> and this is <h2>a header</h2></p>", simply because it has less redundant markup scattered about. And for longer sections, I think indentation gives a better clue.
2. parse your HTML by external apps... Nah. Lisp parsers are among the easiest syntax in the world to write. The closing tag's contents is just one more thing for the parser to worry about.
3. Yeah. I see that HTML tried to follow XML; which I think is a shame, since it's actually a horribly verbose and bloated syntax. Any of the lighter markup languages would have been better; but I guess stuff like YAML wasn't around at the time. Lisp S-expressions were, though, so there's not much of an excuse. And in fact Tim Berners-Lee did propose a lisp-like syntax (google the Curl project from the MIT media lab) for what he thought HTML-done-right would have looked like. [ http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,28277,00 ... ] - rmxz, on 10/29/2009, -3/+9I was hoping some future HTML would let me be less redundant; so I don't have to write <div><span>...</span></div> and I could just write something like <div><span>...</></> instead. That way if I change the span to a div, I don't need to search all over the document. Kinda like in lisp it would look like "(div (span ... ))".
You don't see javascript requiring "function functionname { .... }function" to close the function. Why make me repeat myself in every closing tag?
And besides the typing, think of the bandwidth that could be saved. - captininsanity, on 10/29/2009, -0/+6Any argument over the meaning would just degrade to semantics...
- Culyt, on 10/30/2009, -0/+6Most systems support .gz compression now so there isn't going to be much difference.
Bandwidth for HTML is practically nothing in the scheme of things. Not to mention that HTML5 won't be official until at least 2012 (maybe 2020).
Parsing of HTML isn't going to be drastically reduced by a binary format either. The page still has to be processed, it will need to be rendered to fit the window, every single letter needs to be antialiased and so on. A few: if string == "div" then: doing string matching instead of binary isn't going to change things much.
Most binary formats are moving to HTML anyway. - Techrocket9, on 10/29/2009, -0/+5Best tactic for garnering diggs ever.
- localzuk, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5Last I checked, the W3C doesn't design their languages and standards around one company's proprietary web indexing method...
- MonkeyFit, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5(p this is (b bold and a (h2 header and this part is in (i italics and here's a (a href="www.digg.com" link)))) I don't know about you, but that seems like it can get pretty damn confusing, especially when you start doing a lot of stuff. hey, how come this isn't rendering correctly? oh *****, i forgot the closing parentheses, I only had 4 instead of 5)
Say what you want about being a shoddy coder if you're using that many tags in one line, but it does happen and using full closing tags makes debugging a HELL of a lot easier. I don't even code at all (obviously) and I know that much. - HonoredMule, on 10/30/2009, -1/+6Most original misspelling of 'definitely' ever.
- OnipSemaj, on 10/30/2009, -0/+5I think the consortium is making a mistake. HTML 5 *should* be XML-only in order to force well-formedness and ensure 100%V standards compliance. I don't understand why there's such a resistance to it. Since many web apps are built by 3rd party tools or frameworks anyway, there is no point in having an HTML and XHTML 5 spec.
- LordOfRuin888, on 10/30/2009, -1/+6No, Javafx will take its place
- tdmeth, on 10/29/2009, -0/+5Someone who gets it! Too bad you're getting buried.
- MonkeyFit, on 10/30/2009, -1/+5@ spectre
You do realize that people who have a solid grasp of binary aren't necessarily the same people who have a grasp of design concepts and usability, right? - MonkeyFit, on 10/30/2009, -2/+5In American English, the "H" is pronounced, and since it is a consonant, and not a vowel, you would use "a" instead of "an". While I have no idea if he is in fact from America, it is possible that he is and as such using the correct grammar according to his dialect.
- dalectrics, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3Read the bit about making it work with all browsers.
- Jough, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3Some people still can't afford to ditch IE. Unfortunately, when the majority of your online consumers use it as a browser, you kind of have to rely upon it.
- JQP123, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3If you take the time to read the article, you'll see that yes, IE broke the rules and so did everyone else. All browsers "suck" ... because they don't have any choice.
What does it all really mean?
Standards have their place but they are made to be broken.
It's virtually impossible for a standards committee to envision every possible scenario and implementation that may be impacted by a standard. Building a decent standard is a slow, tedious, deliberate, trial and error process. It's taken 30 years to get *close* to a decent standard for HTML and we probably wouldn't be as far along as we are today if people hadn't broken the rules. - dalectrics, on 10/29/2009, -0/+3I interpret this as making the web more friendly for machines to understand and therefore, in turn, for us to navigate to, find and collect data more efficiently. Does that make sense?
- spectre_25gt, on 10/30/2009, -1/+3Actually, making development a little harder might be a good thing. There are way too many "web designers" out there that don't have a clue what they're doing and should never be marketing themselves as such. Then again, the same crappy tools they use now would probably just include a built-in compiler anyway and the rest of us would get stuck with the extra step of doing it by hand.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2you can cash it in like eric cartman.
- Metasquares, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2@spectre: One of the things that makes the web so interesting is its accessibility. Almost anyone can start putting whatever they want out in the open. While it often results in atrocities such as the majority of MySpace pages, it also allows enterprising young designers with the potential to design much better to make a start for themselves.
Google's co-founders fall into this category, BTW. There's a reason that the page is so simple: they didn't really have a solid grasp of web design at the time. Why would we want to put up more barriers to entry? - ripter, on 10/30/2009, -1/+3I'm not so sure that the extra text in the ending tag really help anything. Computers certainly don't need it. The only thing it really helps is pointing out errors like
<h2>Header <i>Italic</h2></i>
The browser can be like 'Oops! You have an issue with your tags!' But if it's like lisp, then that's not even an error. (h2 Header (i Italic)).
The only issue I can see is confusion for the developer. but that's something formatting can fix.
(h2 a Header with (i italics))
(p this is (b bold text)
(a href="digg.com" How do I know what is text and what is an attribute?)
)
- mdentinho, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2To me the original is 7,006 bytes and The HTML5 is 4.602 bytes.
- spworm, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2it doesn't suck at pissing people off
- Hardflip, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2I believe he's chiefly referring to the prominent use of Flash to build a video player.
Thesedays, it chugs on HD content, has issues when other content is loading around the page (mainly adservers), and has terrible support on OS' other than Windows. - simbait, on 10/30/2009, -0/+2I totally agree with rmnz.
@duerra
SXML (XML on lisp Sexpr) il fully XML compliant though not supported. I would just love use Sexpr instead of XML.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SXML
@Bloodwine you do not know much about parsing right? They are equivalent.
But one thing I learned is that either you love or hate lisp notation. -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is