You do not do any real software development, do you? It is impossible to code to a moving target and be successful. The HTML5 spec is a simple case of horrible management. Simply set a date and no more features after that. Publish the spec and move on to defining the next rev. Very simple to do. There is no thinking outside the box. Simple timeboxing the HTML spec would solve this issue as it does for other major specifications.
Well, the problem is the entire process. You have certain participants who would rather have no spec than a spec that includes certain things that they see as a threat to their revenue or control. So, if we were simply to adopt your suggestion, with the way the process currently works, those vendors could effectively get their way simply by stonewalling the process until time ran out. That sort of thing may work very well inside a single company where the ultimate goal is defined by some person ultimately in charge, but it doesn't work within what has essentially become a political process without a leader who is able to dictate goals.
In Safari and Chrome, the new iPad/Mac navigation bars bounce and slide in using (I'd guess) WebKit CSS transforms that Apple invented and that other browsers don't necessarily support.
Both Opera and Firefox present a simpler version, where the "icons" just fade in rather than slide from the side and bounce. Firefox does the fade so quickly you can barely notice there's animation, while Opera fades in slow enough to be an obvious effect.
Yeaaaaa.... I'm not really feeling any more motivation to do anything more with HTML5 and there definitely isn't any negative impact for not jumping onto the bleeding edge of web technology when there are more capable solutions out right now for the desktop as well as mobile spaces.
If HTML5 is the bleeding edge, HTML 4 is the fetid gangrenous backside.
You might as well say:
I don't want to use Windows so I'm sticking with DOS!
I don't want to use iOS so I'm sticking with Windows Mobile!
I don't want to fly in potentially unsafe airplanes so I'm hitchhiking across the desert!
I don't want to stay in the pan so I'm jumping in the fire!
I don't want to use Windows so I'm sticking with DOS!
I don't want to use iOS so I'm sticking with Windows Mobile!
I don't want to fly in potentially unsafe airplanes so I'm hitchhiking across the desert!
I don't want to stay in the pan so I'm jumping in the fire!
Yeaaaaa... I'm not really feeling any more motivation to do anything more with USB, and there definitely isn't any negative impact for not jumping onto the bleeding edge of connectivity technology when there are more capable solutions out right now for the desktop as well as mobile spaces.
Take my Personal Data Assistant. Why would I use USB when I could plug in its serial port or use IR to transfer data?
I believe there's also one called HyperEdit that's only $15 on the App Store, but it hasn't been updated in about 2 years. I haven't tried it, but I hear it has a feature to automatically check your code for compliance (to HTML 4.01 or XML, I think). I know Taco has auto-tabbing to sort code, and coloured text, as well as a code library and new creation features for things like making slideshows automatically.
Can anyone comment on the features of the other editors?
I like most but not all of it. On my iPad some pages are choppy and load with ugly artifacts before everything pops into place, some images are sometimes draw under other stuff, and the products slider and buttons in the store sometimes stop responding. I like the clean design and typography though.
I must say I like the pages in FF better because that doesn't do the unnecessary moving pictures thing. And for the rest, the look is almost the same as the old look, whcih was OK with me.
I believe there's also one called HyperEdit that's only $15 on the App Store, but it hasn't been updated in about 2 years. I haven't tried it, but I hear it has a feature to automatically check your code for compliance (to HTML 4.01 or XML, I think). I know Taco has auto-tabbing to sort code, and coloured text, as well as a code library and new creation features for things like making slideshows automatically.
Can anyone comment on the features of the other editors?
You could add
vim - free
emacs - free
nano - free
Ever wonder what that terminal button is for? Use it and get coding.
Oh, and if you really want something Mac-like, try Smultron (free).
Edit: oh, and if you do lots of lengthy academic documents with lots of equations and diagrams, LyX (free) and eLyXer (free) will generate you an excellent looking standards-compliant website.
The pages of the new site are fast-loading, responsive, and very clean. I like the subtly refined look. Safari seems to demonstrate the HTML5 better than Firefox and Opera on my iMac. For instance, Safari shows the products on the Mac and iPod pages sliding on and off the page, even bouncing when they stop (a nice touch, I think), whereas the other browsers only display a fade out/fade in transition effect or instant switch.
Also, videos on the new site don't play well on Opera (video is very choppy even after fully loading in, though the audio plays fine). Firefox and Safari seem to handle HTML5 video and audio fine (Safari especially), though I had to turn off the AdBlock extension in Safari because it was interfering with playback. Hopefully the extension will be updated to work with HTML5 soon. I'm also using ClickToFlash to try to keep things snappy.
It looks great in Safari, Chrome or any other recently built WebKit enabled browser with the HTML 5 Algorithm complete stack. Firefox is behind.
No, I think what they have realized is that by having one flowing & constantly updating standard is more likely to push web devs to keep up with what's new. Many devs wait around for a full on version number released with stamp & all before they integrate it. They are saying instead that we release updates to the HTML standard that are then solidified & can be implemented immediately and not as part of a more massive overhaul.
People need to think outside the box, the web is a constantly moving & changing force, the reason standards take so long to implement is because by the time they get close something else totally changes the game & they have to be re-done. If you keep operating standards the old way eventually developers will begin ignoring them because they can't wait around on them to implement their visions for the web. Business is the same way, if you can't move with the market & the changing world you are dead. The days of locking in a niche & riding it out to retirement are gone.
When you say "the web is a constantly moving and changing force" I suspect what you mean is the stuff on the web is constantly changing. Not the markup used to deliver it. It's all very well saying "the standard will change - so web devs should just recode so their sites will work" because that's not always possible. Many of the billions of documents that will be authored in HTML5 can never be changed: they might be burned onto CD, captured in an archive, their authors might die. In summary: HTML5 being an unversioned spec is bad for backwards compatibility - without a clear set of defined features, there's no telling if "today's" HTML5 will work on "tomorrow's" web-browsers correctly.
Images doesn't work when my extension is set to ON on Safari (W). On the Mac Mini page, the gallery on top of page does not change to other pictures when I click on the corresponding mini preview.
I have a few extension, I suppose conflicts with either AdBlock or Ghostery or ImageBlock (disabled ) or maybe ClickToFlash. I have 5-7 others but not related to graphics or structure, more like contents.
Page behave normally when extension is OFF. Have not check which one specifically. Another example <www.flatpanelshd.com>
The new design is very similar to the Mac App Store. The background image is exactly the same.
That background has been on Apple.com since the 10 Billion Apps thing. It's not related to the redesign. Once the homepage pages again it will go back to white.
So they are playing around with HTML5. Does this mean that they'll provide us an update to iWeb that offers the same improvements? iWeb didn't get an upgrade this time around. Many of you likely don't use iWeb, but I do and I'd like to see iWeb updated with these HMTL5 changes.
So they are playing around with HTML5. Does this mean that they'll provide us an update to iWeb that offers the same improvements? iWeb didn't get an upgrade this time around. Many of you likely don't use iWeb, but I do and I'd like to see iWeb updated with these HMTL5 changes.
People really need to define HTML5 before they start slinging around things like this app or that app does HTML5.
HTML5 introduces a bunch of new tags and deprecates almost as many. By and large, the new tags are not the everyday things that a beginner would use anyway. There are some significant tags such as <video> and <canvas> but for sake or generalizing what people on this site consider HTML5 is really the combination of HTML5/CSS3/JS which is used to make animations similar to Flash.
Because that definition of HTML5 is really, really complicated, especially the JS part, it is not something that can be used in a what you see is what you get type program like iWeb or Dreamweaver unless you are in the pure code view and understand include files.
People really need to define HTML5 before they start slinging around things like this app or that app does HTML5.
HTML5 introduces a bunch of new tags and deprecates almost as many. By and large, the new tags are not the everyday things that a beginner would use anyway. There are some significant tags such as <video> and <canvas> but for sake or generalizing what people on this site consider HTML5 is really the combination of HTML5/CSS3/JS which is used to make animations similar to Flash.
Because that definition of HTML5 is really, really complicated, especially the JS part, it is not something that can be used in a what you see is what you get type program like iWeb or Dreamweaver unless you are in the pure code view and understand include files.
So the answer would be "no". I appreciate your explanation. I was just somehow hoping that Apple might be making changes that would translate into an improved iWeb.
I was going to say that the info is wrong, but then I followed the link and read the spec. I'm astounded that HTML5 is broken XML. Even worse, there appears to be an "HTML" syntax and an "XML" syntax.
Even so, the first example provided is not invalid. According to the spec:
'Optionally, a "/" character, which may be present only if the element is a void element.'
I haven't read the spec carefully, but just from the little bit I looked at it to confirm this it looks like they tried to make it very "loose". That is, lots of variations on what can be in there and be considered "valid" - end "/" or no end "/", implied tags, quoted or unquoted attribute values. Bleh! What an ugly mess. I'd hate to read code with this mish-mash of syntax.
- Jasen.
P.S. FWIW, I do XML and web app development professionally.
Comments
You do not do any real software development, do you? It is impossible to code to a moving target and be successful. The HTML5 spec is a simple case of horrible management. Simply set a date and no more features after that. Publish the spec and move on to defining the next rev. Very simple to do. There is no thinking outside the box. Simple timeboxing the HTML spec would solve this issue as it does for other major specifications.
Well, the problem is the entire process. You have certain participants who would rather have no spec than a spec that includes certain things that they see as a threat to their revenue or control. So, if we were simply to adopt your suggestion, with the way the process currently works, those vendors could effectively get their way simply by stonewalling the process until time ran out. That sort of thing may work very well inside a single company where the ultimate goal is defined by some person ultimately in charge, but it doesn't work within what has essentially become a political process without a leader who is able to dictate goals.
Both Opera and Firefox present a simpler version, where the "icons" just fade in rather than slide from the side and bounce. Firefox does the fade so quickly you can barely notice there's animation, while Opera fades in slow enough to be an obvious effect.
I'd report on IE but no Windows PCs around!
Yeaaaaa.... I'm not really feeling any more motivation to do anything more with HTML5 and there definitely isn't any negative impact for not jumping onto the bleeding edge of web technology when there are more capable solutions out right now for the desktop as well as mobile spaces.
If HTML5 is the bleeding edge, HTML 4 is the fetid gangrenous backside.
You might as well say:
I don't want to use Windows so I'm sticking with DOS!
I don't want to use iOS so I'm sticking with Windows Mobile!
I don't want to fly in potentially unsafe airplanes so I'm hitchhiking across the desert!
I don't want to stay in the pan so I'm jumping in the fire!
You might as well say:
I don't want to use Windows so I'm sticking with DOS!
I don't want to use iOS so I'm sticking with Windows Mobile!
I don't want to fly in potentially unsafe airplanes so I'm hitchhiking across the desert!
I don't want to stay in the pan so I'm jumping in the fire!
Yeaaaaa... I'm not really feeling any more motivation to do anything more with USB, and there definitely isn't any negative impact for not jumping onto the bleeding edge of connectivity technology when there are more capable solutions out right now for the desktop as well as mobile spaces.
Take my Personal Data Assistant. Why would I use USB when I could plug in its serial port or use IR to transfer data?
I use TextWrangler, it is a free download - http://www.barebones.com/products/te.../download.html or free in the App Store. Others I like are Espresso and TacoHTML edit.
*ETA - both Espresso and Taco support html5*
So it looks like we've got:
TextEdit - free and pre-installed
Text Wrangler - free, not sure if on the App Store
Taco HTML - $25, available on the Mac App Store
TextMate - $55
Espresso - $80, www.macrabbit.com
Flux - £70, www.theescapers.com
I believe there's also one called HyperEdit that's only $15 on the App Store, but it hasn't been updated in about 2 years. I haven't tried it, but I hear it has a feature to automatically check your code for compliance (to HTML 4.01 or XML, I think). I know Taco has auto-tabbing to sort code, and coloured text, as well as a code library and new creation features for things like making slideshows automatically.
Can anyone comment on the features of the other editors?
I must say I like the pages in FF better because that doesn't do the unnecessary moving pictures thing.
Yeah, it's totally unnecessary, but I think it adds a welcome touch of flare and style. To each their own though.
So it looks like we've got:
TextEdit - free and pre-installed
Text Wrangler - free, not sure if on the App Store
Taco HTML - $25, available on the Mac App Store
TextMate - $55
Espresso - $80, www.macrabbit.com
Flux - £70, www.theescapers.com
Also... Coda - $99
And those really are the only things I miss. Compared to Dreamweaver, TextEdit is worth it, even without them.
What do you use? I'd love to find something with those three features that retains the simplicity of TextEdit.
http://macrabbit.com/espresso/
Awesome app. For the love of God, get something with some more automation than textedit.
More alternatives:
http://alternativeto.net/software/espresso/
So it looks like we've got:
TextEdit - free and pre-installed
Text Wrangler - free, not sure if on the App Store
Taco HTML - $25, available on the Mac App Store
TextMate - $55
Espresso - $80, www.macrabbit.com
Flux - £70, www.theescapers.com
I believe there's also one called HyperEdit that's only $15 on the App Store, but it hasn't been updated in about 2 years. I haven't tried it, but I hear it has a feature to automatically check your code for compliance (to HTML 4.01 or XML, I think). I know Taco has auto-tabbing to sort code, and coloured text, as well as a code library and new creation features for things like making slideshows automatically.
Can anyone comment on the features of the other editors?
You could add
vim - free
emacs - free
nano - free
Ever wonder what that terminal button is for? Use it and get coding.
Oh, and if you really want something Mac-like, try Smultron (free).
Edit: oh, and if you do lots of lengthy academic documents with lots of equations and diagrams, LyX (free) and eLyXer (free) will generate you an excellent looking standards-compliant website.
Jeez, don't they have better things to work on?
Fix a bug !
The Web Site development team is a separate entity at Apple. They are doing their jobs.
The pages of the new site are fast-loading, responsive, and very clean. I like the subtly refined look. Safari seems to demonstrate the HTML5 better than Firefox and Opera on my iMac. For instance, Safari shows the products on the Mac and iPod pages sliding on and off the page, even bouncing when they stop (a nice touch, I think), whereas the other browsers only display a fade out/fade in transition effect or instant switch.
Also, videos on the new site don't play well on Opera (video is very choppy even after fully loading in, though the audio plays fine). Firefox and Safari seem to handle HTML5 video and audio fine (Safari especially), though I had to turn off the AdBlock extension in Safari because it was interfering with playback. Hopefully the extension will be updated to work with HTML5 soon. I'm also using ClickToFlash to try to keep things snappy.
It looks great in Safari, Chrome or any other recently built WebKit enabled browser with the HTML 5 Algorithm complete stack. Firefox is behind.
No, I think what they have realized is that by having one flowing & constantly updating standard is more likely to push web devs to keep up with what's new. Many devs wait around for a full on version number released with stamp & all before they integrate it. They are saying instead that we release updates to the HTML standard that are then solidified & can be implemented immediately and not as part of a more massive overhaul.
People need to think outside the box, the web is a constantly moving & changing force, the reason standards take so long to implement is because by the time they get close something else totally changes the game & they have to be re-done. If you keep operating standards the old way eventually developers will begin ignoring them because they can't wait around on them to implement their visions for the web. Business is the same way, if you can't move with the market & the changing world you are dead. The days of locking in a niche & riding it out to retirement are gone.
When you say "the web is a constantly moving and changing force" I suspect what you mean is the stuff on the web is constantly changing. Not the markup used to deliver it. It's all very well saying "the standard will change - so web devs should just recode so their sites will work" because that's not always possible. Many of the billions of documents that will be authored in HTML5 can never be changed: they might be burned onto CD, captured in an archive, their authors might die. In summary: HTML5 being an unversioned spec is bad for backwards compatibility - without a clear set of defined features, there's no telling if "today's" HTML5 will work on "tomorrow's" web-browsers correctly.
I have a few extension, I suppose conflicts with either AdBlock or Ghostery or ImageBlock (disabled ) or maybe ClickToFlash. I have 5-7 others but not related to graphics or structure, more like contents.
Page behave normally when extension is OFF. Have not check which one specifically. Another example <www.flatpanelshd.com>
The new design is very similar to the Mac App Store. The background image is exactly the same.
That background has been on Apple.com since the 10 Billion Apps thing. It's not related to the redesign. Once the homepage pages again it will go back to white.
So they are playing around with HTML5. Does this mean that they'll provide us an update to iWeb that offers the same improvements? iWeb didn't get an upgrade this time around. Many of you likely don't use iWeb, but I do and I'd like to see iWeb updated with these HMTL5 changes.
People really need to define HTML5 before they start slinging around things like this app or that app does HTML5.
HTML5 introduces a bunch of new tags and deprecates almost as many. By and large, the new tags are not the everyday things that a beginner would use anyway. There are some significant tags such as <video> and <canvas> but for sake or generalizing what people on this site consider HTML5 is really the combination of HTML5/CSS3/JS which is used to make animations similar to Flash.
Because that definition of HTML5 is really, really complicated, especially the JS part, it is not something that can be used in a what you see is what you get type program like iWeb or Dreamweaver unless you are in the pure code view and understand include files.
People really need to define HTML5 before they start slinging around things like this app or that app does HTML5.
HTML5 introduces a bunch of new tags and deprecates almost as many. By and large, the new tags are not the everyday things that a beginner would use anyway. There are some significant tags such as <video> and <canvas> but for sake or generalizing what people on this site consider HTML5 is really the combination of HTML5/CSS3/JS which is used to make animations similar to Flash.
Because that definition of HTML5 is really, really complicated, especially the JS part, it is not something that can be used in a what you see is what you get type program like iWeb or Dreamweaver unless you are in the pure code view and understand include files.
So the answer would be "no". I appreciate your explanation. I was just somehow hoping that Apple might be making changes that would translate into an improved iWeb.
Thanks, good info to know.
I was going to say that the info is wrong, but then I followed the link and read the spec. I'm astounded that HTML5 is broken XML. Even worse, there appears to be an "HTML" syntax and an "XML" syntax.
Even so, the first example provided is not invalid. According to the spec:
'Optionally, a "/" character, which may be present only if the element is a void element.'
So
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
is valid - as far as I can tell.
I haven't read the spec carefully, but just from the little bit I looked at it to confirm this it looks like they tried to make it very "loose". That is, lots of variations on what can be in there and be considered "valid" - end "/" or no end "/", implied tags, quoted or unquoted attribute values. Bleh! What an ugly mess. I'd hate to read code with this mish-mash of syntax.
- Jasen.
P.S. FWIW, I do XML and web app development professionally.