Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

WTF is HTML5 ??


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 chobitz

chobitz
  • 988 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:50 PM

My husband is buying an IPad and Jobs hates Adobe programs(no java/flash allowed!). IPad uses HTML5 instead of flash/java. Is it the same thing and why haven't I've seen it used on web pages. Or maybe I did and didn't know it?

I'm not a programmer so please explain in plain English what is the difference between flash/java and HTML5?

#2 Noitidart

Noitidart
  • Neocodex Co-Founder

  • 23,214 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:54 PM

HTML5 is absolutely amazing!! I never knew it was a replacement for flash though O_o...
But with html5 you can do awesome stuff like the facebook chat on page that doesnt close even when you change a page. Kweh is your man here.

Channel knows a lot about it too! Haven't talked to him much about the subject though.

#3 Guest_jcrgirl_*

Guest_jcrgirl_*

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:55 PM

Umm its a new HTML upgrade that is being innovated to reduce the need for Flash/Silverlight and Java apparently xD
I don't like how Mac is steering this to be more convenient for their pussy iPad <_<

#4 StefanKai

StefanKai
  • 375 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:57 PM

It's magnificent. Some Youtube videos are now in HTML5.

#5 chobitz

chobitz
  • 988 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:00 PM

Umm its a new HTML upgrade that is being innovated to reduce the need for Flash/Silverlight and Java apparently xD
I don't like how Mac is steering this to be more convenient for their pussy iPad Posted Image



I kinda like the IPad, but yeah it is pussified LOL
What pisss me off is sites like Hulu won't be usable on the IPad because it doesn't use html5.

Anyone know a site using it already?

#6 Noitidart

Noitidart
  • Neocodex Co-Founder

  • 23,214 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:05 PM

I thought youtube had an html5 compatible player.

#7 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:10 PM

HTML5 is the future of web development :wub:

#8 gunfun01

gunfun01
  • 2 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:31 PM

What are the major differences between the two anyways?

#9 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:35 PM

What are the major differences between the two anyways?


HTML5 = HTML4++

#10 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:50 PM

What are the major differences between the two anyways?


If you have the patience: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/

#11 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:46 PM

Html5 is a new standard for web browsing. The page your viewing right now using a combination of php, html4, and a few other languages to display whats on the screen. Most of the pictures and layouts are done using Html4. Html5 simply advances upon what html can natively do. It adds in a lot of cool features, but isnt supported by some browsers currently. The specification isnt completely either and that means its open to change in the future (Which is why Apple is retarded for implementing it now. Its like when you could buy a BD player for a thousand dollars in 2003 before BD players came out, and then couldnt play the Blue-Ray disks).

Its currently used on very very few websites, and only in junction with html4. Google changed Youtube to support Html5 for the Iphone because they didnt want to lose that market. If you visit it on a computer running flash, flash will run first, because its faster.

HTML5 is absolutely amazing!! I never knew it was a replacement for flash though O_o...
But with html5 you can do awesome stuff like the facebook chat on page that doesnt close even when you change a page. Kweh is your man here.

Channel knows a lot about it too! Haven't talked to him much about the subject though.



It isnt. Flash is much faster still.

#12 ArticTheTiger

ArticTheTiger
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:49 PM

I completely LOVE html5 on youtube, no idea why, but I like the interface on the videos, and loading times are pretty good too.

#13 kuwazome

kuwazome
  • 1,163 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:37 AM

HTML5 has three main things...

1) Page division with semantics instead of pure div flood
e.g. <header> <article> <section> <aside> <footer>
But they're basically fancy divs, since they're all block-level elements
just like how <div> is used now. Imo its just targetted to idiots who can't
memorize their own class names.

2) Ability to stream and play video and audio without plugins
One thing I want to point out that is better than a flash player is
that you can always click to a point of the video and it'll stream properly.
Even though flash player do they, they often mess up.

3) Implementation of canvas, which is a browser based vector drawing
utility. Probably will replace flash animation since its entirely controlled via
JS, that after they fix all the performance problems with it, or add hardware
acceleration. Since right now the only practical use is static drawings,
like a graph or chart.

*) Should also note that CSS3 is being developed simultaneously.
HTML5 and CSS3 are more like re-standardizations of a lot of existing
technologies rather than complete innovation. e.g. CSS3 dynamic shadowing
vs using pre-made images as simulated shadows. Or like @font-face which
allows any Opentype typeface to be used instead of the crappy web-fonts.

---

HTML5 is absolutely amazing!! I never knew it was a replacement for flash though O_o...
But with html5 you can do awesome stuff like the facebook chat on page that doesnt close even when you change a page. Kweh is your man here.

Channel knows a lot about it too! Haven't talked to him much about the subject though.


That's AJAX dude lol, you're already working with it on codex :p,
and its purely JS + backend.

Html5 is a new standard for web browsing. The page your viewing right now using a combination of php, html4, and a few other languages to display whats on the screen.


Still need php and other backend, HTML5 only provides some new front on
stuff... maybe something like <date> (I think its called this), but then again
its not server time so its not accurate.

Edited by channel_49, 29 May 2010 - 09:42 AM.


#14 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:40 PM

2) Ability to stream and play video and audio without plugins
One thing I want to point out that is better than a flash player is
that you can always click to a point of the video and it'll stream properly.
Even though flash player do they, they often mess up.



Please. Will you stop with this bashing of flash? I can stream a billion videos from Youtube without a problem using Flash. Flash doesn't have a problem. Flash also runs faster and smoother in my browser, as well as works with my hardware across all platforms. HTML5 will never be as good as flash, because it wont work with any browser, on any platform. Flash does this. Flash is good. Please. Grasp that concept.

#15 kuwazome

kuwazome
  • 1,163 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 07:56 AM

Please. Will you stop with this bashing of flash? I can stream a billion videos from Youtube without a problem using Flash. Flash doesn't have a problem. Flash also runs faster and smoother in my browser, as well as works with my hardware across all platforms. HTML5 will never be as good as flash, because it wont work with any browser, on any platform. Flash does this. Flash is good. Please. Grasp that concept.


Its not a bash of flash, just try it. Do exactly
what I mentioned and see the results with both. As far
as codec goes, youtube just encodes everything in
the codecs the popular browsers use. In that sense it
IS cross-browser.

If flash really was the de facto, we wouldn't need
HTML5, yet people are developing it.

#16 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 01:36 PM

Its not a bash of flash, just try it. Do exactly
what I mentioned and see the results with both. As far
as codec goes, youtube just encodes everything in
the codecs the popular browsers use. In that sense it
IS cross-browser.

If flash really was the de facto, we wouldn't need
HTML5, yet people are developing it.



I just did exactly what you said 100 times in Chrome with Flash, and Chrome with HTML5. Flash works perfectly.
I also did it 100 times with flash in Firefox and it was perfect. Same thing with Flash is IE8.

For one, we are talking web wide. Google isn't retarded. They will do things right. But what about news websites? And small websites were they dont know what a codec is and just upload the video?. Also, Codecs are browser independent. It is installed on your computer, and runs on your computer.

Html5 exists before Apple hates Adobe.

#17 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 01:44 PM

Also, Codecs are browser independent. It is installed on your computer, and runs on your computer.


In regard to HTML 5 video the video formats are browser dependent in that certain browser makers support a specific video format for encoding whilst other browsers support different video formats, deciding on a standard video format is the main issue holding back HTML 5 video at the moment (Apple and Microsoft prefer H.264 which is licensed, Mozilla and Opera tend to prefer Ogg Theora which is free and Google is pushing its own VP8 which it just bought and made free which Mozilla and Opera seem to like too).

#18 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 01:49 PM

In regard to HTML 5 video the video formats are browser dependent in that certain browser makers support a specific video format for encoding whilst other browsers support different video formats, deciding on a standard video format is the main issue holding back HTML 5 video at the moment (Apple and Microsoft prefer H.264 which is licensed, Mozilla and Opera tend to prefer Ogg Theora which is free and Google is pushing its own VP8 which it just bought and made free which Mozilla and Opera seem to like too).



The codex would still have to be installed on the computer. I'm guessing they would just have to install when the browser is installed.

I've been reading about the debate. I support Xvid over all of the retarded formats. Xvid is much better then anything they are considering.

#19 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 01:59 PM

The codex would still have to be installed on the computer. I'm guessing they would just have to install when the browser is installed.

I've been reading about the debate. I support Xvid over all of the retarded formats. Xvid is much better then anything they are considering.


The point is that until they decide on a standard then providers will have to encode for multiple codecs and people will need to install multiple codecs, that's not a situation which anybody wants for a spec as wide as HTML 5.

Xvid won't really be an option since Google, Mozilla and Opera are preferring VP8 (WebM) and Microsoft and Apple support H.264, anything else is really just an aside. My guess is that VP8 or perhaps Ogg Theora will become standard unless H.264 is opened up.

#20 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 02:02 PM

The point is that until they decide on a standard then providers will have to encode for multiple codecs and people will need to install multiple codecs, that's not a situation which anybody wants for a spec as wide as HTML 5.

Xvid won't really be an option since Google, Mozilla and Opera are preferring VP8 (WebM) and Microsoft and Apple support H.264, anything else is really just an aside. My guess is that VP8 or perhaps Ogg Theora will become standard unless H.264 is opened up.



Which is the retarded part. I hate it when shitty codecs are still being used. With Xvid we could be doing 1080p on DVD's still not BlueRay. :|

#21 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 02:16 PM

Which is the retarded part. I hate it when shitty codecs are still being used. With Xvid we could be doing 1080p on DVD's still not BlueRay. :|


Xvid uses MPEG-4 compression (like H.264) so it wouldn't be wanted by Mozilla, Opera or Google who prefer free alternatives.

#22 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 09:01 PM

Apple and Microsoft prefer H.264 which is licensed


Wasn't part of the reason that Apple didn't like Adobe that Adobe was a licensed service?

Sure it was a free license to viewers, but it was a pad license to developers.

#23 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 May 2010 - 02:36 AM

Wasn't part of the reason that Apple didn't like Adobe that Adobe was a licensed service?

Sure it was a free license to viewers, but it was a pad license to developers.


They said they didn't like flash because it wasn't 'open' (whatever that means) and apparently buggy. I'm not sure how Apple can criticise something for not being open when you look at the amount of their stuff they completely lock down. :p

#24 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 May 2010 - 07:57 AM

They said they didn't like flash because it wasn't 'open' (whatever that means) and apparently buggy. I'm not sure how Apple can criticise something for not being open when you look at the amount of their stuff they completely lock down. :p



Hey its apple. They control the media. They do what they want. :)

#25 kuwazome

kuwazome
  • 1,163 posts

Posted 31 May 2010 - 04:29 PM

They said they didn't like flash because it wasn't 'open' (whatever that means) and apparently buggy. I'm not sure how Apple can criticise something for not being open when you look at the amount of their stuff they completely lock down. :p


Even thought they support HTML5, everything Apple does
is completely backwards for a company that tries to promote
some "innovation". They're just full of shit.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users