W3C says to hold off on using HTML5

W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium has deemed HTML5 not yet be ready to deploy in web applications. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Opera have all added some support of the HTML5 specification into their browsers, but W3C claims that it isn't polished enough, nor supported enough for general use yet.

Philippe Le Hegaret, from W3C said that most of the current implementation is in the beta versions of browsers and that the APIs, as well as cross-browser compatibility just aren't up to where they need to be to implement the features into websites. Infoworld reports that Le Hegaret still acknowledged HTML5 as a "game changer," just that as of now using Adobe's Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight is a better choice until the features can be properly documented and supported.

Apple has been pushing HTML5 with leaving off support for Flash on their iOS devices, but the W3C does not feel that it is time to retire Flash yet. Currently they are aiming for HTML5 to be feature complete by mid-2011, and expected to be approved in two to three years. Le Hegaret still sees huge gaps in the new HTML specification, such as lack of a video codec, Digital Rights Management support, and authoring tools.

The lack of an agreed video codec lies in patent issues since HTML5 is to be an open platform. H.264 however was recently stated to stay royalty-free. The codec which is already in use by Interent Explorer 9, Chrome, and Safari has a good chance at becoming the standard, knowing now it will stay royalty free. DRM in an open system wouldn't work out, as "it would be broken by a hacker within two days," Le Hegaret stated. Authoring tools are also at a loss, but Adobe offers one that works in conjunction with their Creative Suite package.

W3C may see HTML5 as unfit to use as of now, but there still are plenty of components that are well supported across browsing platforms. Webmasters just need to be cautious on what they choose to include as of now for maximum compatibility.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Where are you on the 2010 Map of Online Communities?

Next Story

Will OEMs and carriers spoil Windows Phone 7?

23 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

H.264 however was recently stated to stay royalty-free. The codec which is already in use by Interent Explorer 9, Chrome, and Safari has a good chance at becoming the standard, knowing now it will stay royalty free.

We've all misunderstood that earlier announcement. Staff at Mozilla say that they still won't be allowed to use H.264 even though it's "royalty-free", because it isn't exactly.

I could care less what they think. I'm using HTML5 now. There's no point in wasting one's time trying to re-create compelling designs without the use of HTML5/CSS3. Those with good browsers will see the nice design. Those without will see the degraded version.

I suppose the only downside is having to update your code when the standard is officially finalized. Given their current pace, it'll be several years at least.

Xero said,
I could care less what they think. I'm using HTML5 now. There's no point in wasting one's time trying to re-create compelling designs without the use of HTML5/CSS3. Those with good browsers will see the nice design. Those without will see the degraded version.

I do believe that HTML5 is the future for web pages, but people tend to be way too sentimental about old things, and companies don't want to spend extra money for a redesign of their web sites, but they'll get it, and I still hope BR is the last physical media we have to use to watch movies.

GFTO, HTML5 has already made it to the scene since the browser wars and no one will want to drop the flag of the bleeding edge now.
I'm sorry but a fairly chaotic landscape is to be expected, and as the W3C officializes more standards, browsers and websites will have to be updated and such.
Not my fault.

will there be a "proprietory-interpretation-to-html5-specs-that-are-still-in-draft-stage-to-see-who-gets-de-facto-standard" war?

will it be like IE vs Netscape again?

mocax said,
will there be a "proprietory-interpretation-to-html5-specs-that-are-still-in-draft-stage-to-see-who-gets-de-facto-standard" war?

will it be like IE vs Netscape again?

Unlikely. I'm not sure proprietary makes sense here anyway - the specs couldn't belong to anyone. All the browsers are proposing specs (features, fixes, improvements) as it is.

H.264 is Hollywood's codec, not the people's. Even if it's free to use for browsers it still requires payment for everyone else who implements it. It's not good for anyone except for the greedy pricks in Hollywood.

JAB Creations said,
H.264 is Hollywood's codec, not the people's. Even if it's free to use for browsers it still requires payment for everyone else who implements it. It's not good for anyone except for the greedy pricks in Hollywood.
That and people who like Quality..
Other codecs are either vastly inferior, or are on questionable legal ground.

Windows and MacOS comes with a decoder, and x264 is a free encoder. Unless you are making movies no one is going after you for legal fees, so meh.

JAB Creations said,
H.264 is Hollywood's codec, not the people's. Even if it's free to use for browsers it still requires payment for everyone else who implements it. It's not good for anyone except for the greedy pricks in Hollywood.
Microsoft said that they would cover anyone who encoded H.264 on windows.

johnnyq3 said,
Microsoft said that they would cover anyone who encoded H.264 on windows.
Which is just Windows. Linux would have problems.

It does not matter what W3C says People are building HTML 5 sites right now. It just going grow with
the adoption of the Ipad and mobile phones.

Melfster said,
It does not matter what W3C says People are building HTML 5 sites right now. It just going grow with
the adoption of the Ipad and mobile phones.

Agreed but as you make your site compatible with this devices you make it incompatible with others, which is almost every browser out there. And as Mr Candyman pointed it out, not even this devices fully support the draft, only partially and not in a completely standard way.

In other words, enjoy epic web testing, debuging and double work to make "hybrid" sites. Not to mention that really big sites won't even take the added investment until the new browsers are decently distributed and they have somewhat of code engineering that will work with every one of those browsers.

The problem is that if people don't push the envelope and wait for the 2-3 years before the standard is finalised browser vendors won't see a need to update their software until then. Then we have the usual inconsistencies that take another version (I'm looking at you Microsoft) to attempt to fix. This is the wrong way (how many manufacturers implemented 802.11 pre-n before the standards body got off their collective arses and finally ratified the standard?).
This smacks of staying friends with Microsoft, as the new beta has pitiful support for HTML5, and has happened before...

mrbester said,
The problem is that if people don't push the envelope and wait for the 2-3 years before the standard is finalised browser vendors won't see a need to update their software until then. Then we have the usual inconsistencies that take another version (I'm looking at you Microsoft) to attempt to fix.

That's right, and probably that would be a critique to how this standard development thing works, but I don't know exactly how they get organized and make decisions on that. So yeah, it should be faster because if a certain standard is in development its because its need for the problems of TODAY, in other words, its needed ASAP.

Anyone knows why this takes so long beyond Scientific problems?

mrbester said,
The problem is that if people don't push the envelope and wait for the 2-3 years before the standard is finalised browser vendors won't see a need to update their software until then. Then we have the usual inconsistencies that take another version (I'm looking at you Microsoft) to attempt to fix. This is the wrong way (how many manufacturers implemented 802.11 pre-n before the standards body got off their collective arses and finally ratified the standard?).
This smacks of staying friends with Microsoft, as the new beta has pitiful support for HTML5, and has happened before...

1st welcome to the world of standardization. I hope you recall that during the implementation of the draft there was a serious issue found in N based draft would cause issues with G based networks. which had to be resolved and tested.

2nd please expand on What IE 9 doesn't implement in the current HTML 5 draft.

el

mrbester said,
The problem is that if people don't push the envelope and wait for the 2-3 years before the standard is finalised browser vendors won't see a need to update their software until then. Then we have the usual inconsistencies that take another version (I'm looking at you Microsoft) to attempt to fix. This is the wrong way (how many manufacturers implemented 802.11 pre-n before the standards body got off their collective arses and finally ratified the standard?).
This smacks of staying friends with Microsoft, as the new beta has pitiful support for HTML5, and has happened before...

+1
Push the standard forward instead of waiting for the W3C to ratify it. I've visited numerous HTML5 sites using different browsers on both Macs and PCs and the only browser that has problems is IE. It seems everyone else is ready for mass HTML5 adoption except Microsoft.

asdavis10 said,

+1
Push the standard forward instead of waiting for the W3C to ratify it.

Its not a standard until it is ratified. It is still just a draft.

asdavis10 said,
Push the standard forward instead of waiting for the W3C to ratify it. I've visited numerous HTML5 sites using different browsers on both Macs and PCs and the only browser that has problems is IE. It seems everyone else is ready for mass HTML5 adoption except Microsoft.
Did you try IE9?

MR_Candyman said,

Actually, they all still have issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML5)

Exactly, is not like you can go ahead and use every feature mentioned in the draft, you have to be careful on what you use and test in every browser to ensure a decent compatibility rate, and we are excluding all the people that use old versions of the browsers almost entirely.

It's just better to get good JavaScript related skills and work with HTML4.1 and XHTML1.1. If you don't want to use plugins for videos, maybe you can try the HTML5 video tag but knowing that a lot off people won't be able to see it anyways. Not a big problem if is an informal site (you can always "youtube" it), but for decent sized companies you don't have a choice but to go Flash or Silverlight, or a hybrid approach (to supports devices without Flash like the iOS based ones).