Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

W3C recommends against deploying HTML5 sites right now

This really depends on how much you would have to rework and how willing you are to do that.

For major sites, this advice is dead on. For those running personal blogs, portfolios or sites with lower impact in general, I say get your feet wet.
 
Spot on.

I don't know why so many people seem to think HTML 5 will magically eliminate browser inconsistencies.
 
RRmalvado said:
It will definitely help with those inconsistencies especially with IE9 supporting it.
Click to expand...

The point of the W3C (they are the ones writing the standard in the first place) is that the current draft is not complete and the problem with implementing now based on browser implementations is that in the future, you might introduce standard inconsistencies, where you're using parts of the draft that never made it to the standard or parts that were modified but that browsers implemented early and of course, wrongly.

Also, right now, a lot of HTML5 CSS properties are still browser dependant, using the moz- and webkit- prefixes. When browsers drop the prefixes, you will have to update your CSS.

Basically, the W3C is advising against using the draft in its current state. They should know what they are talking about.
 
KnightWRX said:
The point of the W3C (they are the ones writing the standard in the first place) is that the current draft is not complete and the problem with implementing now based on browser implementations is that in the future, you might introduce standard inconsistencies, where you're using parts of the draft that never made it to the standard or parts that were modified but that browsers implemented early and of course, wrongly.

Also, right now, a lot of HTML5 CSS properties are still browser dependant, using the moz- and webkit- prefixes. When browsers drop the prefixes, you will have to update your CSS.

Basically, the W3C is advising against using the draft in its current state. They should know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

The browser prefixes will likely work for some time to come. Even so, it will likely be a simple find and replace for most.

While the W3C knows what they are talking about, I think the best approach is the one described above. No sense in not trying it out in a beta form, like what YouTube is doing.

If you are aware of the W3C warning, you won't be surprised when things stop working.
 
calderone said:
While the W3C knows what they are talking about, I think the best approach is the one described above. No sense in not trying it out in a beta form, like what YouTube is doing.

If you are aware of the W3C warning, you won't be surprised when things stop working.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. All my personal stuff uses the new stuff. It's fun to try out and it makes for some nice pages. However, in my work, a lot of our vendor tools are moving to Web apps for interfaces. I think this is more the context where the W3C is advising against using the current standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back