HTML vs HTML5


Recommended Posts

Its already been posted I think.

Plus, prefix tag is missing.

I sense trouble

:p

Oh, sorry. I looked but didn't see it posted before. And I clicked the "pic" tag, but it didn't insert into the title. I'll try to fix it... How can I edit the title?

(haven't posted here before, sorry) =/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just message his majesty.

He'll add the prefix.

No worries really. I am sure he can spare this one.

I think

:wacko:

Oh, and its a nice one (Y)

You click the pic tag first, then you check the check-box just to its right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I almost got it right. Didn't see the checkbox until I just read Neobond's sticky about it. I did add the tag, though, I tried to do it right :)

I just saw this pic and thought you guys would like it.

I can't do anything right! :cry:

(haha)

edit: AHA, found the "full editor" where I could add the title. So... let's pretend that didn't happen. Thanks, Muhammad. I learned stuff today (Y)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this guy even heard of IE9?

Ok, I'm tired of this... Fact Check! Have you actually seen results from HTML5 compatibility tests? Or only Microsoft's rigged fish tanks? IE9 scores 144+5. Everyone else scores well above 300. I do agree that IE9 was a big step in the right direction but it still has enough gripes to be worried about. Now IE10, yes, that one does score above 300, too, and has a performance finally not to be sneezed at. But it's not available for general public.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm tired of this... Fact Check! Have you actually seen results from HTML5 compatibility tests? Or only Microsoft's rigged fish tanks? IE9 scores 144+5. Everyone else scores well above 300. I do agree that IE9 was a big step in the right direction but it still has enough gripes to be worried about. Now IE10, yes, that one does score above 300, too, and has a performance finally not to be sneezed at. But it's not available for general public.

scores what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that site isn't really accurate right?

1. It looks for stuff that isn't really part of the HTML5 specification

2. The points for each thing is rather random.

3. "The HTML5 test does not try to test all of the new features offered by HTML5, nor does it try to test the functionality of each feature it does detect."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't that the site which checks only features and not their implementation (i.e. quantity instead of quality)?

That it does. Though, I'd argue that in this case quality is equally important as quantity. Take, for example, my most favorite scapegoat - video codec support.

You do realize that site isn't really accurate right?

1. It looks for stuff that isn't really part of the HTML5 specification

2. The points for each thing is rather random.

3. "The HTML5 test does not try to test all of the new features offered by HTML5, nor does it try to test the functionality of each feature it does detect."

It isn't, by far. But even less than any benchmark is anyone's pure opinion.

1. Naked HTML does not constitute webpages since somewhere around 1995. HTML5 as it's understood perhaps everywhere else than W3C building is an easy-to-sell sticker to slap onto what is many related technologies, required to build Rich Internet Applications, shoehorned together.

2. Don't grasp at straws, especially such short ones. It's not like we're having twenty points here or there, which indeed I'd be happy to write off as error margin, because, no, I do not hate IE9 or IE in general. The difference is two hundred. I'm sure developer will be happy to hear comments on the most accurate and deterministic methodology, should you happen to be educated in the field of statistics. I have to admit that I nearly failed that course in college, so it seems quite all-right to me.

3. That doesn't help either your or my cause in any way. Peacekeeper, however, leans towards mine - IE9 gets just 2 out of 7.

Lastly, given the fact that HTML5 will not be finalized for years still, and, despite that, HTML5 is being widely sold already, I'm afraid there are no tests (if there ever were any for previous specifications to begin with) that can conclusively prove support of features, quality of features and requirements of customers, other than pure "bigger HTML5 dick" measuring like the test currently in question.

/rant

Jeebus, I think this thread was supposed to be a joke and I've now ruined it :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That it does. Though, I'd argue that in this case quality is equally important as quantity. Take, for example, my most favorite scapegoat - video codec support.

It isn't, by far. But even less than any benchmark is anyone's pure opinion.

1. Naked HTML does not constitute webpages since somewhere around 1995. HTML5 as it's understood perhaps everywhere else than W3C building is an easy-to-sell sticker to slap onto what is many related technologies, required to build Rich Internet Applications, shoehorned together.

2. Don't grasp at straws, especially such short ones. It's not like we're having twenty points here or there, which indeed I'd be happy to write off as error margin, because, no, I do not hate IE9 or IE in general. The difference is two hundred. I'm sure developer will be happy to hear comments on the most accurate and deterministic methodology, should you happen to be educated in the field of statistics. I have to admit that I nearly failed that course in college, so it seems quite all-right to me.

3. That doesn't help either your or my cause in any way. Peacekeeper, however, leans towards mine - IE9 gets just 2 out of 7.

Lastly, given the fact that HTML5 will not be finalized for years still, and, despite that, HTML5 is being widely sold already, I'm afraid there are no tests (if there ever were any for previous specifications to begin with) that can conclusively prove support of features, quality of features and requirements of customers, other than pure "bigger HTML5 dick" measuring like the test currently in question.

/rant

Jeebus, I think this thread was supposed to be a joke and I've now ruined it :|

Since you mention W3C the only standard organization charged with maintaining HTML5 I thought I'll let this hang here.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/02/w3c-tests-html5-browser-compatibility-crowns-ie9-the-champ/

Yes its dated, however the only non-biased test performed to date said that IE9 at the time had the best compatibility to HTML5 standards at the time. So before you crow about how much IE9 doesn't really support HTML5 and throw the ultra biased HTML5 test site at us, remind yourself again that the HTML5 test site: 1) Test for things not in the HTML5 standard and 2) The only test performed by the W3C HTML5 standards origination states that IE9 complies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes its dated, however the only non-biased test performed to date said that IE9 at the time had the best compatibility to HTML5 standards at the time. So before you crow about how much IE9 doesn't really support HTML5 and throw the ultra biased HTML5 test site at us, remind yourself again that the HTML5 test site: 1) Test for things not in the HTML5 standard and 2) The only test performed by the W3C HTML5 standards origination states that IE9 complies.

Well, try keep it hanging. I'm going to go waterhose on it.

1. Excerpts from articles following the given link:

Of course, these checks don't cover the entire spec, which in itself isn't even finalized yet, but they provide us with a glimpse
The tests do not yet cover web workers, the file API, local storage, or other aspects of the spec.

Effectively, HTML5Test looks for too much things, W3C counterpart - for way too little.

2. It's very dated. Additionally, W3C test is currently not functioning, so there's no comparison available.

3. Please make your accusations that it's "ultra-biased" worth money. Biased towards what exactly? And how much is ultra? 220%+ is not a believable error-margin by any means.

4. HTML5 standard doesn't exist. Most up-to-date version is Working Draft which is only the first stage of four required to pass before it reaches W3C Recommendation.

Finally, disregard the total score, take a side by side comparison of reports in detail, take each feature actually in the Working Draft as 1 point, that way reducing error margin to absolute minimum. I'm taking a guess here, I can't be arsed to do this myself, after all it's not me who takes a dislike on this test, you prove it wrong. Unfortunately, by my guess alone I'm convinved you'll be forced to find that IE9 is still lacking. In which case - quod erat demonstrandum.

Before you "crow" about things here, remind yourself if you haven't misplaced your reading glasses.

:sleep:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm tired of this... Fact Check! Have you actually seen results from HTML5 compatibility tests? Or only Microsoft's rigged fish tanks? IE9 scores 144+5. Everyone else scores well above 300. I do agree that IE9 was a big step in the right direction but it still has enough gripes to be worried about. Now IE10, yes, that one does score above 300, too, and has a performance finally not to be sneezed at. But it's not available for general public.

This picture implies that nothing made in HTML5 works in IE. Nothing. It's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also it's posted in Jokes section, implying that it's subjective / widely exaggerated / shouldn't be taken seriously.

I know I went bat**** over the IE9 statement, ok? Forgive me, St. Internets, for I have sinned. I'm bored. I have a really boring college assignment to do that I desperately don't want to. So... yeah :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HTML5 isn't even finished yet. They could add, subtract, or change it at any time. Why is it so important for a browser to support it near-fully until the standard has been finished?

It would also be nice to see specifically which tests failed or passed on each browser.

Also it's posted in Jokes section, implying that it's subjective / widely exaggerated / shouldn't be taken seriously.

I know I went bat**** over the IE9 statement, ok? Forgive me, St. Internets, for I have sinned. I'm bored. I have a really boring college assignment to do that I desperately don't want to. So... yeah :pinch:

That's ok, this is a computer forum where we get really passionate over "stupid" things ;P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also it's posted in Jokes section, implying that it's subjective / widely exaggerated / shouldn't be taken seriously.

I know I went bat**** over the IE9 statement, ok? Forgive me, St. Internets, for I have sinned. I'm bored. I have a really boring college assignment to do that I desperately don't want to. So... yeah :pinch:

Haha, I can relate to that.

Yeah, the original image is taken from a 'troll' slide in a students presentation for his own college assignment. So... yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.