W3C says: Hold HTML5 Deployment in websites

[benevolent001]

Interesting article , a advice by w3c to hold html5 deployment in websites due to some pending inter portability issues.

Infoworld Article [infoworld.com]

"The problem we're facing right now is there is already a lot of excitement for HTML5, but it's a little too early to deploy it because we're running into interoperability issues," including differences between video on devices, said the official, Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C interaction domain leader. He is responsible for specifications like HTML and SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics).

[edited by: incrediBILL at 3:48 am (utc) on Oct 7, 2010]
[edit reason] Added quote [/edit]

[encyclo]

It looks like sound advice to me - for most websites, it is much better to stick with HTML4, there are still too many users of legacy browsers, and HTML5 is far from finalized as a specification.

I have dabbled in some HTML5, but I wouldn't use it on a live website.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Hopefully we won't see a return of 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' on sites that are itching to evolve to HTML 5 use.

[Fotiman]

I would use HTML5 now, but with HTML4 markup. That is, I wouldn't use any of the new elements, but I would use an HTML5 doctype (for the simple fact that it's so much shorter and doesn't break anything). :)

[incrediBILL]

Don't forget Steve Jobs has been hyping HTML 5 over things like Flash for well over a year now and the prominent people involved are now saying to slow down your HTML 5 implementations.

Does this mean that everyone drinking the iKool-aid will end up with HTML 5 that has interoperability issues just to look cool on iDevices, or that iWebkit will now be the defacto leaders in supporting quirks caused by deploying HTML 5 too fast?

Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Solution1]

Like Fotiman, I use the empty HTML5 doctype for shortness, and don't use much of the new HTML5 stuff, yet.

But I do use the <menu> tag, instead of <ul>, which had been needlessly deprecated by the W3C. It is now again part of HTML5, and is, of course, still supported by all browsers.

[graeme_p]

How do older browsers treat HTML5? All those IE6 users?

As it is backward compatible with both HTML and XHTML syntax, does that mean it solves the problem of using XHTML output (from framework or CMS) when you cannot use application/xhtml+xml?

[encyclo]

Does this mean that everyone drinking the iKool-aid will end up with HTML 5 that has interoperability issues just to look cool on iDevices, or that iWebkit will now be the defacto leaders in supporting quirks caused by deploying HTML 5 too fast?

Webkit risks becoming the IE6 of HTML5 implementations - a rush to market based on an unfinished specification, meaning that if HTML5 future development doesn't coincide with Webkit's implementation we're going to be back to the old days of browser-specific hacks.

[yaix2]

I would use HTML5 now, but with HTML4 markup.

That's what I do too. And I use the <nav>, <artice> and <aside> tags just in case G starts to understand them.

[ronin]

How do older browsers treat HTML5? All those IE6 users?

A good question.

Look up Remy Sharp's "HTML5 shiv" on Google Code - it works wonders.

[StoutFiles]

It's not too hard to look up the HTML5 tags that are supported by all browsers.

You can start converting to HTML5 at anytime, just avoid the fancy stuff until the browser support is there.

[mattur]

As it is backward compatible with both HTML and XHTML syntax, does that mean it solves the problem of using XHTML output (from framework or CMS) when you cannot use application/xhtml+xml?

Yes, XHTML-style tags are allowed in HTML5.

So you can use <img> or <img/>, etc in a HTML5 document, both are conformant.

[ceestand]

We won't see another IE6-like situation again. It was created by a lack of foresight, similar to the Y2k bug. Nobody is going to upgrade from IE6 to IE7, they will go to the most current browser and the circumstances that led to the current problem are most likely removed.

Chrome has an excellent model for installation and updates, if the other browsers follow suit, all for the better. Easier said than done, but if the user won't update their browser to one of the many free choices they have, F 'em.

[Matthew1980]

Hi all,

I am hoping that HTML5 comes along sooner rather than later, as I code things to the strict standards and the only thing that irritates me at the moment is the: target="_blank" attribute, as in html as we have it now, it throws error's, and I really don't like doing window.open(), so as I know that target="_blank" is now 'allowed' to validate in HTML5, I really hope that it comes sooner.

Cheers,
MRb

[Fotiman]

@Matthew1980, as I pointed out above, you can use an HTML5 doctype right now and just don't use the new elements and you'll be fine. So you could modify your code to use HTML5 doctype and leave the rest of your code unchanged (including your target="_blank").

[Trav]

I've seen this posted here and there, and it's kinda of a red herring. There are parts of html 4 and css2.1 that aren't supported by the current browsers, and yet everyone has found a way to cope.

One guy at the W3C is saying this, not the entire consortium.

The fact is, parts of html5 are currently supported by every browser. The parts that aren't can easily be omitted, and of course there are a number of workarounds (such as Sharp's HTML shiv) for those parts with spotty support. The only reason I can think of for not learning it and using what's available now, is if you plan on retiring from web-authoring in the next couple of years.

It's an evolving thing, and I suspect that by the time the standards body actually puts this thing to bed, we'll already be talking about the next thing in this same way. My feeling is (to paraphrase Gandhi): be the change you want to see in the world.

[jimbeetle]

We won't see another IE6-like situation again. It was created by a lack of foresight, similar to the Y2k bug. Nobody is going to upgrade from IE6 to IE7, they will go to the most current browser and the circumstances that led to the current problem are most likely removed.

Sure we will. You have to keep in mind that many folks don't yet have hardware that's Vista or Win7 compatible -- like this machine I'm on now. Home users on older machines with XP are probably already upgraded to IE8, but I think they're going to have to see a powerful need before investing in new machines.

And the businesses are still in love with XP.

The transition might take a few years.

[graeme_p]

ronin, StoutFiles, mattur, Fotiman: thanks, this thread is the single most useful one (for me) ever on WW. I am going to start using the HTML 5 doctype, although probably not the new tags (yet).

[rocknbil]

Sure we will.

Agreed, I know of at least one site that IE 9 beta has already broken. It's validated code, *without* usage of IE conditionals or any CSS hacks, and compatible in even IE6 but IE 9 breaks it horribly. *Joy.*

[graeme_p]

I have found that websites say contradictory things about whether IE6 uses quirks or standards mode (in so far as IE6 standards mode is standard!) with the html 5 doctype. Does anyone have any experience of this?

[encyclo]

IE6 can use quirks mode or standards mode, depending on the doctype, but the IE6 standards mode is not compliant with standards :)

[graeme_p]

Yes, I know the hard way about how standard IE6's standard mode is, but it is better than its quirks mode, and I want to know which it goes into with the html5 doctype.

I have done a bit more Googling and it appears that most people say it does into standards mode. I have got a bookmarklet that checks mode. Next time I start my Windows VM I will copy it in and test it.

[encyclo]

The HTML5 doctype triggers standards mode in IE6.

[benevolent001]

Just to add up , may be its not already mentioned in this discussion.

HTML5 is getting ready for the last call in May next year.

You can read more about this at W3C website [w3.org]

[Matthew1980]

Hi all,

Thanks for posting this link benevolent001, make for a good read.

@Fotiman, thanks for the clarification, I mustn't have read your post thoroughly enough before adding my 10p.

Cheers,
MRb

[poiuy]

I haven't realiza the difference between html4 and html5.