

Reasons to Use HTML5 - dzejkej
http://tympanus.net/codrops/2011/11/24/top-10-reasons-to-use-html5-right-now/

======
blauwbilgorgel
Of course I embraced HTML5, but since this was written as a top 10 of why I
_should_ use HTML5 now, I'll try to refute that top 10 for reasons of why you
_shouldn't_ use HTML5 right now:

    
    
      10. Accessibility.
    

HTML5 sure has the potential to improve accessibility, but.WAI-ARIA guidelines
are in draft mode. It will be several more years before assistive technologies
fully support HTML5 to the degree they now support HTML4 and all your users
will run on browsers that support HTML5.

"Upgrade to the latest version of Chrome to view this HTML5 demo" isn't any
more accessible than prompting a user to download the latest version of Flash
5.

WAI-ARIA was needed to combat the accessibility problems that ajax-rich/click-
rich web applications introduced. Part of this HTML5 and forward thinking is
responsible for accessibility problems, not a cure.

Requiring javascript support (shiv) or a web-kit browser from a user, for
laying out a web page isn't all that accessible.

    
    
      9. Video and Audio Support
    

The author called flash video implementation a hassle. So what does the author
call a flash video fall-back, with a <video> tag, and your video encoded in
.ogv, .webm, and .mp4?

And javascript feature detection to decide which to show? And a way to
implement custom controls for both flash-video and html5-video?

And since you want accessibility how about flash and html5 captions?
Descriptive Audio?

And Yahoo searchmonkey RDFa that you already used for your flash video and
schema.org for your html5 video? Incompatible.

How long did it took for Flash to support webcam video and what is the current
support state of <webcam> for html5? Video and audio support is what Flash
did/does best.

    
    
      8. Doctype
    

It is short and simple, right? Why not <doctype>, or why not leave it out all
together, if you can't be bothered as a HTML web developer to remember, store
or copy-paste a doctype?

And RDFa with a html5 doctype?

    
    
      7. Cleaner code
    

Faulty example.

Why not <ul id="subnav"> <li>..</li> </ul>

How is that less clean than <nav id="subnav"> <ul> <li>..</li> </ul> </nav> ?

    
    
      6. Smarter Storage

Only works for local storage capable browsers, so off limits for app critical
functionality, unless you don't care about that. If it was so smart, why can't
I store a 15MB movie on Safari mobile?

Do you want to bother your users with a pop-up that says: "This website wants
to store stuff in your local cache" while storing stuff like preferences in
cookies is much more silent.

And how secure (for your privacy) is local cache and ETags when it can be
abused for tracking?

    
    
      5. Better Interactions
    

"Better" Interactions. Better how? "It can do everything Flash was able to do
in 2001, but better". Also better than Papervision3D from 2008?

    
    
      4. Game development
    

I don't need to switch from Flash to HTML5 to get Game development. I wouldn't
switch from Flash to HTML5, because better game development.

"If you’ve built Flash games before, you’ll love building HTML5 games."

If you were to poll game developers, this would likely be a very unpopular
statement. I know it certainly doesn't apply to me.

    
    
      3. Legacy/Cross Browser Support
    

Again, no reason to switch to HTML5 from HTML4. It would be a reason _not_ to
switch, if it didn't had legacy browser support, but that doesn't make it a
game changer all of a sudden.

And a browser conditional statement ("if lt IE9" or "if Windows XP general
user"), followed by a javascript hack, isn't native legacy support. It is just
what it is.

    
    
      2. Mobile, Mobile, Mobile
    

HTML5 for mobile will be great, and this is a good reason to switch and fully
familiarize yourself with HTML5 as a webdeveloper. Responsive design et al was
already possible with HTML4 though, but the author is correct in saying html5
is important for mobile.

I am not really waiting to get "apple-touch-icon" approved as a HTML5
standard, but there is no denying that the future of HTML is in the hands of
the big companies now.

    
    
      1. It's the Future, Get With It!
    

Sure, that is why I am already implementing HTML6 on most of my clients
websites. The specs are a little rough around the edges, but at least I made
my clients websites future proof. ;)

It seems you are advocating more of a switch to dynamic HTML5 web apps.

------
Zirro
I do find it a bit ironic that the article is published on a site with the
XHTML Transitional DOCTYPE.

"It’s the Future, Get With It!" ;-)

~~~
tbassetto
It is not ironic, it's humanity: <http://www.zeldman.com/2011/11/18/it-is-not-
ironic/>

~~~
davidw
Humanity can be pretty ironic in its behavior, at times.

------
_m4
One of the better HTML5 walkthroughs. I like that he emphasizes almost
seamless transition from XHTML. That's the key point, not all the new
features!

I did not know about the Javascript shiv to make old browsers support HTML5.
Very neat! Will play around with it right away.

------
tikhonj
The very first thing I see in the article? An ad about creating free flash
websites. They could not have chosen a worse article to put that on :)

------
billpatrianakos
You'd be surprised at just how many people are still using table based
layouts, inline styles and JavaScript, they keyword meta tag, and a ton of
techniques that were cutting edge in 1997! And I'm talking about professional
design firms!

I love HTML5 and I see no reason not to use it today. I know that there are
still people using browsers that won't support the majority of features but we
can still at least use the new tags and doctype with the JS shiv. For
everything else there are well known ways to serve up new hotness to modern
browsers and old lameness to old browsers. For example we can use the video
tag with the last line before the closing tag being an embed for a YouTube or
other video player as a fallback for older browsers.

I think there are 2 and a half reasons why HTML5 isn't being widely adopted
yet. First, newbies are being fed old techniques from online tutorials and old
books. Secondly, many of the cooler new features of html5 require JavaScript
to work (Local Storage and Canvas for example). A lot of people still haven't
gotten on the JavaScript bandwagon (including me, I admit. I can use jQuery
plugins and get how they work but god help me if I had to write a single line
of JS from scratch!). And then reason 2.5 is that people are just set in their
ways. There are a ton of people who had been fed the rhetoric about semantics,
divitis, and how to "properly" write HTML while learning XHTML and waiting for
the I,agin any XHTML2 spec to arrive. Some of those people are set in their
ways or have sour grapes about XHTML not being the new hotness after all the
hype.

I have a question though. Why is it that in the HTML5 Boilerplate the doctype
tag is in all lowercase? My text editor highlights it like its wrong. I
usually capitalize the word DOCTYPE and leave html in all Lowe case. Does it
make a difference?

~~~
Zirro
Nope, HTML(5) is flexible. You could use <!dOcTyPe HtMl> if you feel like
getting funky :-)

~~~
billpatrianakos
Cool, thank you! So was it just a personal choice in HTML5 BP or was there a
reason behind it?

~~~
rimantas
Uppercase DOCTYPE is for XHTML5 (HTML5 XML serialization). Basically XML
requires to have DOCTYPE in uppercase and html in lowercase. By writing it
this way you will conform to both cases. See also <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-
polyglot/#doctype>

------
kombine
The only benefits of HTML are that it's supported by all vendors. But that's
where it's advantages end. HTML and CSS are just a joke, and were never meant
and designed to be used for application development. Javascript is a shit
language, not geared towards writing performant code and projects like V8 try
to workaround it, but that's just a workaround. Of course you can use hacks to
achieve performance in JS too, but that wouldn't be idiomatic javascript. So,
sad but true, there is lots of hype going on about crap technologies lately
and it seems like we are going to deal with them in the foreseeable future, if
even so experienced guys like Microsoft had to surrender and start using it.

~~~
billpatrianakos
Okay, so if HTML and CSS are so horrible then how do you propose we create
websites? We're talking about the web, man! You've got to use HTML if you're
going to work on the web no matter what. I see nothing bad about HTML or CSS.
Every language has its shortcomings but that's because it can't be all things
to all people.

The really awesome and a,axing thing about HTML and CSS is that we as web
developers are innovating the way things are done online so much that the
specs can barely keep up! I think it's great that we're outgrowing each new
version of the spec so quickly. That means things are getting better, faster,
more powerful.

We've taken these tools and bent the rules to create things that the languages
weren't intended for. The languages haven't failed because they were never
meant to do things that people have found a way to make them do. And now that
these possibilities are out there it only means that the languages will evolve
to accommodate the things we're doing with them just like html5 and css3 which
I think are amazing leaps forward!

JavaScript isn't perfect but it works and it can get better. I don't get what
your problem really is with these things. You say JavaScript is bad and slow
but the rest just sounds like uninformed hating.

What's your solution? Replacement languages for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript so
that not only do we all have to start from scratch with new languages but then
wait even longer for browser support? You certainly do have balls barging in
here like a troll with a half assed argument that states the obvious but
misses the entire point of the new technology. These things are awesome for
the same reason you say they suck.

~~~
kombine
I'm not a troll, I'm familiar with these tools. I've even written a prototype
of a web application(IDE). And I know very well how much it is pain in the ass
to develop using web technologies, compared to proper frameworks(.NET, Qt,
Cocoa, you name it). Web technologies are the least common denominator,
something that is more or less supported by everyone, but sucks compared to
good tools. Of course if you really try - you can build something great with
it(Google Docs, GMail, Cloud9 and many other amazing apps). But it requires 10
times more effort compared to good tools.

The advantages of the web are not the technologies it's implemented with, but
very founding things like URL, instant delivery of content and applications.
All of that is completely unrelated to the current technology stack. Google is
a good example for you. They are probably the most experienced people out
there in creating complex web applications. And yet they are the ones who try
to bring technologies to replace them - Native Client, Dart programming
language.

And you not even contradicting me, by saying "What's your solution?
Replacement languages for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript so that not only do we all
have to start from scratch with new languages but then wait even longer for
browser support?" Yes, web stack is the current state of affairs. And it will
take some strong man with balls to get rid of it and build a better new world.
And yes, there are better technologies than that - a good example is QML for
example. And I am by far not the only one who isn't satisfied.

~~~
sbuk
QML? That'll be the JavaScript influenced modelling language from the Qt
project, right?

