I am a bit sad. I'm a bit sad to see Flash is going away and Steve Jobs is not going to see it. Because that's his decision to have no Flash support in iOS that became the death knell for the Adobe technology. Flash became his weapon because:
Jobs had an old issue with Adobe to solve,
Apple does not like third-party technologies that become a gordian knot,
it's a question of good taste and I suppose Jobs has (almost) always considered Flash as bad taste.
So Flash will get security fixes on Android and RIM, will be stopped on all other mobile devices, and will continue to live on Desktop. As I told an interviewer last year in Sweden, HTML+CSS will eventually kill Flash but as a side-effect. By the way, it's ironical to read that at the same moment a rumor says Microsoft could stop Silverlight, its own -ms-Flash...
Speaking of Adobe, that's a big big change for them. They relied on proprietary tech they made ubiquitous, and they now have to rely on the browsers themselves. Since they can't implement themselves all the HTML, CSS and JS goodness they need to replace Flash, they will probably focus only on WebKit. And that's where it's interesting : since they have no impact on the other browsers, they cannot be sure all they need for Web Sites will be available in all browsers at a given time. They can only be sure - if they work themselves on WebKit - they can release a WebKit-based runtime for something like Adobe Air. Please note PDF.js is a threat of a similar magnitude to the Acrobat Reader plugin. So I think that Adobe will probably entirely leave the consumer-oriented plugin market at some point. Their acquisition of PhoneGap is another good indicator of that. They bet on WebKit as the biggest trend in the Web Browser market, thinking that other browsers will have to follow WebKit anyway if it implements new trendy stuff. Not a bad bet, in my humble opinion. That's also why we see a much more active participation of Adobe in the CSS Working Group for example.
Since WebKit is a lot in the hands of Apple, Adobe certainly asked itself the following question: "should we fork WebKit to be more in control?". I bet a box of cookies the answer was "no".
So my predictions, thinking out loud:
death of Flash and Silverlight, all platforms, as soon as possible.
death of Acrobat Reader as a plugin, all platforms, as soon as possible. Adobe should even help PDF.js.
stronger and stronger involvement of Adobe in WebKit ; following the acquisition in Bucharest, more hiring of SW engineers with good knowledge of the guts of WebKit.
Adobe Air will eventually drop Flash entirely and switch to Web Standards. Or Air as we know it will go away and PhoneGap will be the new Air.
Dreamweaver's future is probably a strong subject of discussion internally at Adobe. It has grown in circles, is hardly maintainable any more, focuses a lot on Flash-in-the-Web-page and is probably not adapted to what Adobe is currently creating.
And all rejoiced because <time> is back in HTML5... But one thing has to be said: <time> is back not because it was a bad technical decision to remove it but because the HTML WG decision policy and process were not formally observed. In other terms, it's a loophole in the original action of removing <time> that allowed it back. Good catch and well done Paul (sincerely), but everyone has to understand it does not say <time> will be back forever.
More generally, I think (and I said it during TPAC) that too often basing HTML decisions on metrics or here "traction" is bad. When Unicode added some exotic charsets to the standard, some of them were proposed and supported by only one person, and no user of that writing script was in the consortium itself. Metrics ? Bah, the users of that writing script were not on the Web yet ! Traction ? One person. Let's discuss a11y too : just a fraction of web users need a11y features but these features are tremendously important to them. Among HTML spec developers, only a fraction really understand and propose a11y features, only a fraction of users need the features. Who said metrics, who said traction?
I have another example : the INS and DEL elements. They were introduced in HTML4 for visual modification marks. I was there, in the HTML WG. They can't cover all the cases Visual Modification Marks need, all editing environment authors know it. As a matter of fact, Microsoft Word is based on markup and CSS since the end of the 90's and AFAIK has never used INS and DEL because it's impossible. It uses attributes. So I proposed to make the current ins and del elements obsolete and switch to attributes. Rejected. Keeping a feature that does not work and will never work as intended is apparently better than making a better feature in the right way. Just so you know, this problem is now 20 years old. I clearly remember discussing Visual Modification Marks in markup-based editors with Jean Paoli and Vincent Quint in the first months of 1992 (yes, nineteen ninety two) and it was already clear that elements were not meeting the requirements. It was also discussed with Microsoft folks during the Web conference in Boston in 1995. The WHATWG/HTMLWG inability to deal with the accumulated experience in the marked-up world between 1986 (SGML release) and now is sometimes astonishing. Here, in the case of INS/DEL, metrics is zilch since nobody implements INS/DEL seriously. Traction? Right, implementors of Visual Modification Marks don't send feedback any more about that (I'm the only who still does it) because they have tried hard and dropped the case, relying on proprietary implementations. But now that WebApps offer more and more online cloud-based editing tools based on HTML, we need Visual Modification Marks in a standard way. It is highly time to have a workable solution here, and when I mean workable I don't mean INS and DEL.
For one reverted <time> fiasco, how many unreverted ones below the radars or worse, above the radars (think longdesc)?
pop-ins and more powerful tooltips
trees (and when I mean trees, I mean tree-like widgets like the XUL <tree> able to render tens of thousands of lines w/o making the user experience awful)
better integration with the OS/WindowManager
While we're (the Standards Community) now focusing on super-mega-hyper-useful stuff like an API to get the battery status (sic...), we're still unable to include in a web- or desktop app such widgets with a native look&feel. There are zillions of frameworks to ease the pain, but none of them is ready for desktop apps, and HTML+CSS+JS desktop apps need them to become mainstream AND cross-platform.
I think then a new standardization effort between HTML and CSS is needed to make HTML UI appear. Let's look back at XUL and XAML a bit... Thoughts?
I have said it multiple times here, in W3C mailing-lists or in public between 1998 and now but apparently it must be said again and again: the current HTML5 Last Call Working Draft - that does not reach at all the quality of other LCWD in the W3C and did not meet the basic requirements for a LCWD in the W3C Process - still has not worked on that erratum. So let me repeat it : html5 ins and del elements suck and should be dropped in favor of a better solution.
ins and del are, by definition, both inline-level and block-level elements. If in a Wysiwyg editor, you select the textual contents of a paragraph, turn on a "Visible Modification Marks" feature and hit the Delete or Backspace key, the editor has the option between <del><p>....</p></del> and <p><del>...</del></p>. The user has no way to make a difference between the two but the two are NOT strictly equivalent. In the latter case, it is still theoritically possible to place the caret in the paragraph but BEFORE or AFTER the del element and insert new chars. In the former case, the whole paragraph is deleted and the user can't insert anything inside any more.
In the latter case just above, it's impossible for the user to know if a caret placed at the beginning of the paragraph is before the paragraph, inside the paragraph but before the del element, or at the beginning of the del element.
much more importantly, ins and del cannot cover one trivial case : since there is no equivalent to SGML inclusions (see for instance this link for a rather clean explanation) in XML, the following is impossible: <ul><del><li>a</li></del><li>b</li></ul>. It is for instance totally impossible to mark an element as entirely deleted if the parent container's model does not allow the del element...
The situation is unfortunately very clear: the ins and del elements as they exist now in the various html specs are unable to provide editing environments with a workable and predictable solution for Visible Modification Marks, the primary reason why the elements were originally introduced in HTML 4. As a matter of fact, almost no Wysiwyg editor implements them.
For the n-th time in 13 years, I strongly recommend to drop the ins and del elements in favor of the following attributes. All elements inside the body element should be able to carry them.
change attribute ; possible values: inserted, deleted optionnally followed by a whitespace and one of the keywords reviewed or to-be-reviewed.
review-by attribute ; an arbitrary value meaningful only when the change attribute contains the to-be-reviewed value and meant to be displayed for human consumption ; can be for instance a name, a mail, a twitter id, etc.
reviewed-by attribute ; an arbitrary value meaningful only when the change attribute contains the reviewed value and meant to be displayed for human consumption ; can be for instance a name, a mail, a twitter id, etc.
the cite and datetime attributes as currently defined in the html5 spec
This is the minimum attributes set needed to resolve the issue. Another attribute "tagging" the potential reviews of the proposed change could also be added.
I really hope this change is going to happen. Again, the current ins and del html elements are totally hopeless.
Our geek world is a world of trust. Just like in Antwerp at the Diamond Bourse, people belong only to two categories: trustable or not trustable. In Software, most of the people around us are trustable. Around me, almost everyone is trustable, almost everyone has always been trustable. It's so rare so find someone untrustable that it always hit me as a shock. I still remember marca's words about the three challenges a company faces "hire, hire and hire". A corollary of the hiring process is trust. Hire only people you trust. Hire only people you can respect. Hire only people who can do better than you if they're not already doing better than you.
So yesterday, I had a shock. Three shocks to be more precise. That's a bad beginning for 2011, since nobody shocked me to that level in the five last years. Grrr.
PS: in fact, there are two other categories at the Diamond Bourse: those who can speak yiddish and the others.
I discovered yesterday the HTML 5 "logo" and I find it completely missing its target. Except the name, nothing in the logo's design is clearly related to the Web. Change "HTML" in that logo to "Interstate" and it could well be a road sign...
I already had a chance to give my opinion about the "HTML 5 is everything" current buzz during the last Technical Plenary Meeting of the W3C in Lyon. I find it counter-productive and in fact harmful. Oh, that's the only acronym journalists use to describe "the Open Web Platform"? Since when journalists DO things instead of WRITING ABOUT THEM?
Being the co-chairman of the CSS Working Group, I am also puzzled by the "CSS 3 / Styling" thingy that goes with the "HTML 5 logo". See by yourself:
Hum, to say the least! I just don't understand this beast. What the hell is it supposed to tell me? CSS, Presentation, Style, Fonts? Really?!?
Speaking only for myself here, who can seriously think I am going to use such a meaningless horror (see below) anywhere? Hmmm?
(this article uses SVG and MathML, Safari has issues with it because of HTML mimetype ; please prefer Chrome or Firefox)
Let's take a given square box. Height and width are the same. We
want to apply a red-to-black background at let's say alpha degrees
and through the center C (50%, 50%) of the box. The W3C gradients
draft says we find the start and end points of the gradient that
Let's suppose the size of the box is 100%*100%. In that case,
finding the coordinates of the end point (for instance) is easy:
α is our user-chosen angle
let β be the angle between the horizontal and the line between
the C and D; we have
the distance between C and D is of course
the distance between C and the end point is then
and the coordinates of our end point are then
Of course, Gecko-based gradients use a start point and an angle
to define a linear gradient while WebKit-based gradients use a
start point and an end point.
But according to the above, we will get different absolute
coordinates for our start and end points depending on the box's
size even if the angle remains the same.
The above means that it's not possible, in the general case, to
derive a -webkit-gradient(linear, ...) from a
-moz-linear-gradient(...) - and vice-versa - without having access
to the element's size.
Conclusion: sorry, BlueGriffon will not output WebKit-based
gradients outside of the trivial cases, it's just not possible.
(this message is posted with my CSS WG Co-chair hat on)
Yes, we need you. CSS 2.1 is a complex specification, and it has roughly 20,000 HTML4 and XHTML1 tests in its Test Suite. To make the document move from Candidate Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation, we need to show that each and every test in that Test Suite is passed by at least two different implementations. And that's where you can help :
if you have a few spare cycles and are able to test a few hundreds or thousands of the tests in the Test Suite with the (see below) of Opera, Firefox4beta, IE or WebKit, please help us focusing on the least tested tests or the ones that have only 0 or 1 passing implementation.
The results are agregated into a database. Thanks a lot for your help!