
HTML5 and the Web - alexandros
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/05/HTML5-and-the-Web
======
buster
Really good read, i think i can agree to every point.

However, the most interesting sentence for me was "In fact, compared to the
level of support and tooling you get from XCode on the Apple side or the
various pieces of Android IDE-ware, HTML5 development is a major pain in the
ass.".

This is exactly my experience, too, and it's why i find it sad to see that Air
won't be supported on the iPad. Basically developers have the choice between
developing for HTML5 and target a lot of platforms, which is a pain in the ass
nowadays even if you are only targeting Desktops. The other choice is to
develop almost painlessly but only target one platform and having to duplicate
work for every platform. Air is for developing for every platform with
presumably less pain then HTML. It's a way with its own drawbacks but also
with benefits. Developers (and in the end also users and the market) should be
able to decide what is the best for them on their own.

Nevertheless, i really hope that the situation with HTML will resolve in the
near future, but it will certainly not this year.

Also, i am wondering, why we don't start targeting specific browsers.. i mean,
of course i know. Because websites have to run on every browser, yes yes. But:
We install Flash to have Flash Apps, we install the Java VM for Java, .Net,
Silverlight, a pdf reader to look at documents. Why don't websites say "The
website was developed and tested for browser XXX. Please download browser XXX
_here_ or continue on your own risk". Websites are developed for the least
common denominator of a big variety of browsers which will only lead us to
where we are now, although so much more could be possible.. Chrome has the
option to add a website as programm link to your operating system. Taking this
thought further, i could imagine to have Gmail as a full fledged replacement
for Outlook/Thunderbird in my start menu, with all the latest and greatest
that HTML5/Chrome has to offer. Gmail (or some other mail service) could
provide a nearly 1:1 copy of a desktop mail client. Offline Storage, Web
Notifications, Drag-n-Drop between browser and filesystem, etc. It's all
there. And none of it will be used until every browser supports every feature
:(

People will call me crazy now and this will most probably never happen, i
know, but why not dream? ;)

~~~
Xurinos
It is easier for a user to push a button to install a plugin than to install a
new browser, update the profile with bookmarks and so forth, and learn the new
interface. We can trivialize these things, but I am sure we also have as many
stories of trying to get someone to use Firefox (with noscript!) instead of IE
and meeting significant resistance or eye rolling.

A plugin has the disadvantage and the advantage of supporting users' browser
choices.

So basically, it looks petty and unprofessional to say on some minority of
websites, "This website is developed and tested for" or "This website will
only run on". In contrast, I have seen "Click here to upgrade your Flash
Player", and moments later, things just work.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could have an HTML renderer plugin? And some
kind of system where you could -- with some clear and dumbed-down descriptions
of the differences/advantages -- choose between alternatives? And get
upgrades?

~~~
buster
Yes, i can see some problems:

\- First, in the worst case users will switch between browsers all the time,
but users only want one place to store their bookmarks and cookies

\- Second, even worse, if this would become a common practice, every browser
manufacturer (especially MS) would just develop their own HTML "extensions",
the standard would drift apart even more and the ultimate goal to achieve 100%
standard compliant browsers would be out of reach. I can see how MS would
implement new HTML and Javascript functionality to offer developers new
features and in the end tie them to their browser

------
pedalpete
For a long time i've tried to understand this paragraph

'building a really hot HTML5 application that takes advantage of the nice new
features is not exactly easy. Even assuming that you’re using one of the
dozens of clever toolkits, it’s still not a slam-dunk. In fact, compared to
the level of support and tooling you get from XCode on the Apple side or the
various pieces of Android IDE-ware, HTML5 development is a major pain in the
ass.'

What is it that people are finding so difficult to do in HTML(5 or otherwise)?

I've looked through a ton of apps, and with the exception of games and access
to API's (which can be done with things like phonegap), what is so challenging
to do efficiently in html and javascript?

~~~
mcav
Performance is generally much slower. This isn't a problem for most apps, but
it is for CPU-intensive apps. That includes anything with substantial
rendering or computation. The latest HTML5 features like local storage,
sockets, and cross-window messaging go a long way to make many more apps
feasible, those features aren't available in all browsers.

Even writing native Cocoa apps on the iPhone requires lots of optimization in
loading and rendering content. JavaScript is even more intensive, making it
more difficult to create fluid interfaces that rival the native experience.

I suspect that if mobile performance was comparable to desktop performance,
Javascript would win out for a lot more use cases than it does right now.

