Notice: This is a discussion thread for comments about the SitePoint article, IE9 and Real-world Solutions.
What did you think of Louis Lazaris's exploration of what Internet Explorer version 9 can do with HTML5 and CSS3? Does it make you want to take a closer look at IE9 beta?
I agree on the svg support, it is pretty amazing.
I think that HTML 5 and css3 should only be used if one knows how to use them, validate them (nothing vendor-specific, and has failsafes.
I think css3 should be avoided more however as much as I love it
Does anyone know where I can find or show me the links where I can follow the updates on cs3 drafts and the plans for features or fixes in future drafts as bulbula did for htmHTML5
So many things! Some shorter and some longer changes. A 15 character doctype! The ability to include audio and video without plugins
Here is a list of the new elements & tags:http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_new_elements.asp
Some quick, fun, and helpful references are html5rocks.com and the online book diveintohtml5 ,which is now in print by o'reilly & Google press.
Have fun with the future of the web!
SVG support is only ever touched on in feature summaries like this. I know you can't cover everything in detail but SVG is one of the most impressive technologies in the IE9 feature stack to me.
I am going through the sitepoint book about HTML and am really enjoying it. I just wanted to say I am doing the exercises in KOMODO edit, which is a free download for macs, and am able to view and example of the site in firefox as I write the code and I find it very helpful for working through the exercises.
Great job on the book, keep them comming
@Tan, Which book are you talking about?
"Build your website the right way with HTML and CSS"
I have built about 20 websites with free sitebuilder tools but keep running into the limitations of them. I have gone back and am trying to get the foundation to do things properly. this is the perfect place to start.
Can you please post its link as well. i also couldnt find it
So Sorry for the confusion, here is the link for the book I highly reccommend it!
The given e book link not working ,plz chk it.
The lack of pimping SVG stems from it being a fifteen year old technology that in terms of web use was first available over a decade ago when the OBJECT tag was introduced.
But nobody remembers that since Adobe buried their IE plugin for it the moment they bought up Macromedia!
Much like X11 you need to put a API on top of it for 'normal' people to use it which is why it was effectively stillborn on the browser a decade ago... the old joke, if X11 didn't suck we wouldn't need Motif, GTK+, QT or any of the other frameworks.
Which is just PART of why there's so much more interest in CANVAS.
Basically SVG is old tech that nobody embraced the first time around -- which is why calling it part of HTML 5 is just so much bull!
But that's also another part of my 'issues' with the HTML 5 specifications -- all these other specs that have NOTHING to do with markup being thrown under it's umbrella for no good reason.
Seriously thinking about starting to press forward, and just warn users:
You need a modern browser to use this web site
There is a growing number of enlightened people who understand what SVG can bring to the web. The browser vendors are actively adding SVG support for a reason.
I'm all for backwards compatibility, but it's getting to the point where enough is truly enough. Computers are powerful enough to handle most modern browsers now and given the choice I would ditch old browsers and redirect users to a text-only version of a page immediately.
Sadly, like most others, I work for a company that receives a large number of users from dead browsers like IE6, most likely users at work, and ditching old browsers is like ditching 15-20% of users.
A few years ago I thought that we'd have ditched IE6 long ago, even IE7...
Welcome to 1997...
What do I mean by that? Does anyone else here remember the stupid malfing "best viewed in" banners for IE and Netscape?
We REALLY don't need a revisit to those days. It's funny how it's like every new generation of coders wants to do that all over again.
CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) is a method of separating information about web contents format from the content itself. This has several inherent advantages. First off, and most practically, using CSS will allow you/your webmaster to edit the format of your entire website at once instead of changing every individual page when the sites template changes. This will greatly reduce the cost of updating your website. Another benefit of CSS is that formatting code is kept separately from content. This has the effect of raising keyword density and while making you web page easier (hopefully) to parse for search engines. Furthermore CSS is far more versatile than older table-based designs, allowing web designers greater freedom which in turn raises the quality of sites. <snip/>
DeathShadow - I'm no "old school" programmer or anything but I understand the basics of a few languages.
I certainly do not want to see banners displaying "this website works best in XXXXXXX browser." It sounds like that defeats the whole purpose of having compatible languages. Am I wrong?
The reason I started learning more languages was to make my websites more compatible across browsers. I also wanted to reduce the load time of my pages and reduce the amount of errors.
I'm pretty sure web development should be about making your website work flawlessly across ANY browser. The mobile age is NOW, your websites should be compatible for all viewing sizes!
you all are giving nice reply can any one of you tell me that how can i call css from other file to my website ?
For "near" future, I do see potential commercial site taking advantage of HTML 5 technology. The server can detect what browser is running and be able to serve up specific HTML code. So, this would eliminate the banner "Best viewed on...." Of course this would mean maintaining at least two different view sources. In business world, that's more maintanance cost. It would be tragic if HTML 5 won't be adapted for at least another 5 yrs... and sadly... this is probably true...
This time we're dealing not just with different browsers, but with out-of-date browsers with poor security; browsers that developers and security analysts unanimously agree should have been put out of commission years ago.
I'm not advocating the adoption of standards that aren't set in stone, but what I am advocating is the drop of support for browsers that are no longer supported by their developers. I can understand businesses not ditching them just yet, but on personal sites or at client discretion I have opted to display web pages as plain text for IE6 users, with a message at the top of the page stating why their page has no styling. A lot of clients feel the frustration of having to wait longer for a website to be finished because their site doesn't work on a dead browser and more often than not cheaper prices and speedy deliverables make everyone happy.
In my view, if we don't do this we'll still be developing for IE6 in the next five years.
Glad you brought this one up Mark, it answers my worries. thanks
next page →