There is one advantage of DHTML over HTML5.
When HTML6 comes along it won't feel so outdated :-)
- rami
On 29.5.2010 16:00, Quirino Zagarese wrote:
Considering that the other runtime is SWF, HTML5 seems more correct to me.
Ajax is a paradigm, not a technology itself. Actually
SWF-compiled-apps can be considered Ajax apps.
Definitely HTML5 for me!
2010/5/29 Sarah Allen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
I vote for HTML5
On May 29, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Raju Bitter wrote:
And here's the link to John's blog post:
http://my-thoughts-exactly.wetmachine.com/content/smashwords-ipad-doctorow-zeldman-further-bumbling-self-publishing-adventures
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Raju Bitter
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Have you ever thought about renaming the "DHTML" button to
Ajax, or even better: HTML5?
Technically OpenLaszlo already supports some HTML5 features,
so you could say it's "HTML5 enabled", or whatever you want
to call it. It's just that people don't have any idea what
DHTML is. Just check this comment in John Sundman's blog:
I thought Laszlo compiled to Flash, or am I misinformed?
I see that it supports DHTML too-also, but since I don’t
know what DHTML actually means, that says to me it’s not
a Big Deal. I’m probably wrong. Explain why!
I've heard it over and over in the past years that people are
saying: Why do you call Ajax support "DHTML"? Just check the
Wikipedia article on DHTML:
The term "DHTML" has fallen out of use in recent years,
as DHTML scripts often tended to not work well between
various web browsers. DHTML may now be referred to as
unobtrusive JavaScript
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtrusive_JavaScript>coding
(DOM Scripting
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOM_Scripting>), in an
effort to place an emphasis on agreed-upon best practices
while allowing similar effects in an accessible,
standards-compliant way
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Enhancement>.
Some disadvantages of DHTML are that it is difficult to
develop and debug
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debug> due to varying
degrees of support among web browsers of the technologies
involved, and that the variety of screen sizes means the
end look can only be fine-tuned on a limited number of
browser and screen-size combinations. Development for
relatively recent browsers, such as Internet Explorer
5.0+ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_5>,
Mozilla Firefox
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox>2.0+, and Opera
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_%28web_browser%29> 7.0+,
is aided by a shared Document Object Model. Basic DHTML
support was introduced with Internet Explorer 4.0
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_4.0>,
although there was a basic dynamic system with Netscape
Navigator 4.0
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator>.
DHTML just sounds so old-school, before RIA and Ajax, just
out-dated. Wonder how many people would google for "DHTML
RIA" instead of "HTML5 RIA"? And check Google trends (or
attached screenshots):
http://www.google.com/trends?q=html5%2Cajax%2Cdhtml%2Cria
And another point is: in high-level management presentations
people will much more likely know the term Ajax or HTML5 than
the term DHTML. I've met enough people that don't have any
clear understanding what DHTML means, but no-one ever told me
that it's a good name for the capabilities.
Raju
--
Quirino Zagarese
PhD Student - Engineering Department - Università degli Studi del Sannio
Italian OpenLaszlo Community - www.laszloitalia.org
<http://www.laszloitalia.org>
EU4RIA: Laszlo+Java, easily - eu4ria.googlecode.com
<http://eu4ria.googlecode.com>
