I'm kind of liking 'HTML5' as well. As far as getting outdated, by the time there's HTML6, it will probably have some other cool name, like "Utopia" or something, so we can just make another runtime for it.
Internally, we've got all these classes in the system and directories named "SWF9", which are really SWF10 now, and nobody except you guys read the source code anyways,. On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Rami Ojares <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 When HTML6 comes along it won't feel so outdated :-) 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]> >> >> 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]> 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 JavaScriptcoding (DOM Scripting), in an effort >>>> to >>>> place an emphasis on agreed-upon best practices while allowing similar >>>> effects in an accessible, standards-compliant way. >>>> >>>> Some disadvantages of DHTML are that it is difficult to develop >>>> and 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+, Mozilla Firefox2.0+, and Opera 7.0+, is aided by a shared >>>> Document Object Model. Basic DHTML support was introduced with Internet >>>> Explorer 4.0, although there was a basic dynamic system with Netscape >>>> Navigator 4.0. >>> >>> 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 > > EU4RIA: Laszlo+Java, easily - eu4ria.googlecode.com > > -- Henry Minsky Software Architect [email protected]
