

Ask HN: Does HTML5 excite you?  Why or why not? - brlewis

Please tell what perspective you're coming from: designer, programmer or both.
======
simonw
As a client- and server-side developer I'm extremely excited about HTML5. For
the first time in a decade, browsers are getting new capabilities! HTML 5 is
much more than just new tags - we're talking offline support, concurrency with
web workers, canvas, geolocation, native audio and video, WebSockets, a
supported method of making cross-domain API calls...

HTML 5 is clearly aiming to bring the open web platform up to par with desktop
APIs. I expect many desktop applications to be developed using
HTML5+CSS+JavaScript within just a few years.

And even if that doesn't spike your interest, there's the critically important
role the HTML 5 spec pays in standardising what we already have. It's
ridiculous that XMLHttpRequest, one of the most useful modern browser APIs,
has no spec - every browser implements it by reverse engineering the others,
who in turn reverse engineered IE (which is closed source, so who knows if
they got it right?). HTML5 fixes that. It also specifies things like
innerHTML, ContentEditable, the execution order for script files, all that DOM
level 0 stuff that never made it in to an official spec.

Finally, HTML5 specifies a formal error model for HTML for the first time.
This means it will actually be possible to implement a new browser from
scratch without having to spend years reverse engineering the behaviour of IE
and friends when faced with invalid markup.

I'm amazed to see so many web developers unexcited by HTML 5. This is the
first time our core platform has seen any serious evolution since HTML4.01 was
published in 1999!

As for browser support, it's happening right now. If you develop for the
iPhone / mobile WebKit stuff most of the above features are sitting there
waiting for you to use them. Try this page in your iPhone for example:

[http://simonwillison.net/static/2009/navigator.geolocation.h...](http://simonwillison.net/static/2009/navigator.geolocation.html)

Even IE is catching up - IE8 supported a bunch of HTML5 concepts (key/value
based storage, cross document messaging, hashchange event and more) and IE9 is
set to support even more.

HTML 5 is the most exciting thing to happen to web development in a very long
time.

~~~
Semiapies
None of these things require HTML 5, and all of the worthwhile things had
workable implementations before HTML 5.

Formal specifications for things that had de facto cross-browser support for
multiple browser generations are _nice_ , but not amazing.

"This is the first time our core platform has seen any serious evolution since
HTML4.01 was published in 1999!"

And that's just simply untrue, but oh, well.

"I'm amazed to see so many web developers unexcited by HTML 5. This is the
first time our core platform has seen any serious evolution since HTML4.01 was
published in 1999!"

And I'm boggled to see such giddy fanboyism modded up so high.

~~~
rimantas
Can you list _worthwhile things had workable implementations before HTML 5_
and the stuff they implemented before HTML5? <canvas>? <video>? local storage?

~~~
Semiapies
With Canvas, you might have a point, though it makes a poor justification for
the rest of HTML 5. I've yet to need Canvas for anything, though. Video is
silly to even ask about. Google Gears rather predated HTML 5 local storage.

Now, give me something I couldn't do before with nearly-universal plugins.

------
sixpoint8
Front End developer and graphic designer (xHTML/CSS/Design) HTML5 makes me cry
inside, part of me died when HTML5 gained browser support. To me, HTML5 is all
about GIT'R'DONE; it's an evolution, an odd growth on the body of HTML4,
rather than setting a newer, better foundation. :(

~~~
simonw
Did you ever actually try running a site using proper XHTML? I ran my blog
like that (serving the correct content type to non-IE browsers) for a few
years and found it to be a ton of hassle for absolutely no benefit.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I doubt the situation will improve by introducing yet another incompatible
pointy bracket syntax.

------
fefiuoqeiu9
blackhat. web sockets and cross-document messaging thrill me like midget porn
never could.

------
tlrobinson
I'm excited... but it's not enough. What we should really have is a
standardized low-level byte code interpreter, allowing a variety of languages
and great performance. Basically what Java promised but didn't really deliver.

------
Andys
Programmer here. Canvas tag excites me because for years the desktop
programmer in me has wanted simple pixel addressing so that I could implement
my own full-featured input/form controls, such as a grid control.

------
mquiche
programmer. offline storage, sql storage, canvas, and web workers are very
interesting.

------
boucher
Almost all of the HTML features in HTML5 are boring and barely useful. The
rest, basically, <video> and <audio> are crippled.

The useful parts of HTML5 are the new JavaScript APIs (which arguably don't
really belong). Unfortunately many important ones are missing, and of the ones
which are present many are incomplete or broken.

~~~
JMiao
not to mention <audio> being awful in mobile safari.

------
decadentcactus
Mostly a programmer, and not really. To be honest I would be much happier with
better CSS capabilities (better syntax, variables) than video tags and
whatnot. I'm not against it obviously, but probably won't be rushing out to
learn all the new features.

~~~
brlewis
OK, so what about what the new elements do for CSS? Won't style sheets be more
portable now that we have <aside>, <article>, etc.?

~~~
DougBTX
Unless new features are added to CSS, I suspect <aside> and <article> will
behave exactly like <div>s do today.

~~~
brlewis
Right now a CSS file for one site won't work for another. With HTML5,
sometimes it will. I find that a little exciting. Imagine portable themes.

~~~
elliottkember
Sure, that's exciting. But imagine designers not having to test in every
browser for rendering bugs. Imagine testing in one browser and being sure it
was going to work for everybody, just as fast, and look just as good. I think
it'd be a huge, huge step forward. After that, HTML5 all the way!

------
joshsharp
Programmer. I think it's great that we're extending the semantics of what we
have now, but we're going in the wrong direction. I agree really strongly with
John Allsopp that we shouldn't be extending the number of elements available -
we should be creating a framework for extensible semantics (using attributes
or the like):

<http://www.alistapart.com/articles/semanticsinhtml5>

Though I agree that canvas, audio and video tags, and web workers are great
additions.

~~~
stan_rogers
I have to disagree here. It is the common document elements that represent the
greatest improvement, in that they will provide accessibility cues that
classed divs never can. It's all well and good for us to gripe (or crow) about
what can and cannot be done with the element collection already in hand (in
HTML 4.01 and in XHTML), but when it comes right down to it, we have no way of
semantically differentiating the various parts of a document. Attributes
within HTML or the implied extensibility of XHTML are not really solutions
here, since even with namespaces and custom DTDs there is no way to indicate
to a user agent the ACTUAL significance of any given class of span or div
within the document context. A convention is NOT a standard.

HTML 5 (and its X counterpart) should mark an enormous shift in the usability
and discoverability of web pages for users of assistive technologies, for
indexers and cataloggers, and so forth. <canvas> doesn't turn me on nearly as
much as <header>, <section>, <aside> and <footer> do.

------
prodigal_erik
Programmer here. HTML 5 is dominated by scripting, which I think we will
regret. Marked up data is easily manipulated and repurposed, but arbitrary
code has very few uses other than executing it, which is mostly why script-
heavy documents tend to be trainwrecks in accessibility and search.

And I desperately hope there's going to be a more usable and declarative
schema for HTML 5 than "anything is valid if you carry out this long parsing
procedure and it says it's valid".

------
Semiapies
Both.

I haven't seen anything exciting _about_ it. It doesn't let me do anything
significant that I couldn't with existing technology. It's just the New Style.

------
farmerwu
When I first started thinking about it and studying it, I found it downright
exciting. So much potential. But as with most thing the devil is in the
details. And we just don't have enough details yet. So much could change
between now and when it actually gets implemented that it may turn out to be a
big disappointment.

~~~
jacobolus
> _we just don't have enough details yet_

What do you mean we don't have enough
details?<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/>

> _So much could change_

Like what?

------
elliottkember
Developer here - it definitely excites me. But I'd much rather see full,
compatible CSS2.1 support first - and then CSS3!

I just can't help but think that this will fragment things a little bit
further. I hope it won't, but I don't know whether we can expect all browsers
to implement HTML5 at the same time.

------
fauigerzigerk
I'm excited about many of the new features. However, the move away from XML
syntax is a disastrous and utterly pointless decision.

Also, I wish they had taken the opportunity to rid the world of the massive
failure that is CSS and replace it with a layout system that makes simple
things simple.

~~~
rimantas
1) Nobody moved away from XML syntax. You can still use it if you want. 2) In
most cases XML syntax is pointelss. 3) HTML5 has nothing to do with CSS, and
CSS is doing fine, far from being "massive failure".

~~~
fauigerzigerk
It doesn't matter whether I can use XML. What matters is that some people will
use a new syntax and all the integration hassles and incompatibilities will
start once again.

Why is it a good idea to invent yet another syntax that is almost the same but
not quite compatible?

Looking at the ridiculous guru culture that has formed around minor obscure
CSS features is very telling. When that happens to a technology I call it a
massive failure.

~~~
rimantas
What new syntax are you talking about? There is no new syntax in HTML5.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Yes there is: <http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html>

"HTML 5 is being written in two syntaxes: html and XML. Because SGML has never
been deployed in browsers and many html authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new
serialization called html, which looks a lot like the previous known SGML."

------
protomyth
Programmer - No The idea that we are stuck with javascript instead of a VM is
sad.

~~~
simonw
Not sure what you mean by that... V8 for example is a virtual machine that
runs JavaScript.

~~~
protomyth
I still have to use javascript as my programming language. I know there are
cross-compilers to javascript, but it is really disappointing that we sorta
standardized on a language instead of a bytecode.

~~~
timmfin
IMHO, a single, simple, and flexible language has greatly helped the web
become ubiquitous. I think that javascript has been a key ingredient to the
web's growth and it might not have been the same if a more "powerful" or
"standard" language/jvm was shoehorned in.

------
walesmd
Both.

Nope. It just bloats what we already have in xHTML 1.1. Sure, I can throw a
header or section tag around a block, but I still have to use divs. It's just
another level I need to indent at this point in time.

~~~
henriklied
Sorry, which new features do you imagine available in XHTML 1.1 that aren't
there in HTML 4.01?

Let me help you count: Zero.

HTML5 is very little about e.g. the HEADER element, and much more about the
underlying support for other features, such as geolocation, native sound and
video, crossdomain XMLHTTPRequest, offline support and (yes,) much more.

~~~
walesmd
xHTML encourages well written, consistently formatted, code which is probably
its most important feature.

Many of the HTML5 features you mentioned I don't see as being features that
belong within a document structure language. Geolocation and Crossdomain
XMLHTTPRequest are browser issues they have nothing to do with a document and
don't belong in a spec for a document definition.

Native sound/video and offline support, of course, I agree with. But, if your
application doesn't have the need for either of these features - what does
HTML5 offer?

------
bugs
Both; and no it doesn't excite me in the least because of such a slow adoption
rate of new browsers.

------
enomar
Programmer. I'm excited about async scripts and cross document messaging for
sure...

------
aw3c2
I was excited about standards on the audio and video formats. Since that has
been cancelled HTML5 has no advantages over my current love XHTML. Both
programmer and designer but both are just hobbies and my sites are mostly
static (and I hate Javascript).

------
cmelbye
Programmer. OMG, WEBSOCKET!

------
earl
Programmer.

It doesn't excite me in the least because, since I can't afford to alienate
big chunks of my audience, it might have enough penetration to use in, oh, 3-5
years? Meh.

~~~
waterlesscloud
That's the main issue. The user base for it will be relatively small for
several years.

Hopefully many of the people on IE 6 will leapfrog to a HTML 5 browser in the
next few years, that would solve a lot of issues.

~~~
drhowarddrfine
How does that affect you? Your HTML markup will work in HTML5, too. In any
case, I keep reading no one will use it for years yet most of the leading
developers and designers I know are using it today. And I'm joining them since
all my markup is now HTML5 as of six months ago.

~~~
jacobolus
When you say that your markup is HTML5, do you just mean that you changed the
doctype at the top (That's trivial, and its only real effect is saving a few
bytes, though I suppose it's a nice symbolic gesture), or that you are now
using all of the new semantic elements like <article> and <section> and
<footer>, using <video> instead of plugin-based video, including features like
drag-and-drop, or offline use of data-heavy apps, &c. &c.?

~~~
drhowarddrfine
Yes, using the newer elements. Haven't had a need for the others yet.

