Comments on: Don’t “deploy HTML5″? Thanks again W3C

By: mario

mario — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:50:11 +0000

Don’t forget to voice your opinion here too:
http://forums.whatwg.org/viewtopic.php?t=4436

By: Levi Figueira

Levi Figueira — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:07:41 +0000

The timing of Philipe’s comments, the venue on which he commented and the surrounding defense of his statements by Adobe and its employees makes me vomit. Political? You bet.

Adobe knows that HTML5 will eventually render Flash useless for *most* of its current applications and will completely lose what I personally think it lost a long time ago: “cool factor”. Flash websites used to be “cool” hence Flash’s popularity and all its misuses. Now, HTML5 is the new “cool” (with just as many misuses, but of name not application this time).

Farewell Adobe. May the Ballmer be with you.

By: John Dowdell

John Dowdell — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:39:44 +0000

re: “Because clearly, according to jd/adobe, the only real purpose of html and web browsers should be a thin layer to support plugins… we should all do nothing unless Adobe Flash allows us to.”

OT aside to John Welch: It’s not useful to assert things which are not so… cuts into others’ reading time, and the habit affects your own growth. Just wasteful overall… you can do better.

jd/adobe

By: Jayesh

Jayesh — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:36:08 +0000

As a developer, I don’t really care if HTML5 as a spec get an official stamp in 2015. All I care is, major browsers (which have > 80% market share combined) implement the HTML5 features – minor variations in implementations are acceptable. All web developers are used to IE workarounds. This is no different.

As a user, I don’t even care that there exists something called HTML. All I care is, new websites are developed with features that previously were done only in native desktop apps and that they work on my browser.

So except for browser makers, I guess this is a non-issue for everyone else.

By: jpvincent

jpvincent — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:30:52 +0000

web developers never looked at the recommendation level of a specification.
Or they wouldnt use CSS2.1 today (it’s still CR) nor the CSS selector they use daily with jQuery (still Draft !)
W3 can remind us those facts, but really I think we can provide better user XP right now. And that include IE6, if you use the correct librairies to emulate what’s native in half the browsers

By: John C. Welch

John C. Welch — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:00:40 +0000

Yes. Because clearly, according to jd/adobe, the only real purpose of html and web browsers should be a thin layer to support plugins. Gee…wonder what all websites SHOULD be built in, if the only purpose of browsers and html are as plugin hosts…

“It’s smarter to add advanced functionality through a common extension to any browser. Even if Adobe cannot quickly create Players for every possible environment, this would still let more people enjoy more functionality more quickly, while still retaining the basic markup which every browser should be able to read.”

http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2010/09/looks-best-in-browser-x.html

So, really, we should all do nothing unless Adobe Flash allows us to.

By: John Dowdell

John Dowdell — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:08:41 +0000

I read it as less of a criticsm of what you can do today, than of the lay public’s perceptions of what you can do today. (The over-selling of real capablity has influenced many business decision makers.)

Less anti-HTML than anti-hype…?

jd/adobe

By: James Pearce

James Pearce — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:58:07 +0000

One has to hope he was hopelessly misquoted, or now no longer a spokesman…

There was mysteriously no mention of mobile browsers – which are leading the charge in a lot of HTML5 respects. This immediately discounts his opinion.

It also read as though he was defending Flash – which is bizarre (and not only because that doesn’t work on a few notable browsers either ;-) )

By: Brett Slatkin

Brett Slatkin — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:11:06 +0000

This kind of thing underscores the reasons for the WHAT-WG split from the W3C.