Just Don't Eat the
The Tables Have Tu
Medicare Advantage
Contract Breach Au
Marquesan Vacation
Plan Voodoo
I Vote You Out and
DOT Prison Currenc
botirl.com
Gouge My Eyes Out

Opening Pandora's
Mama, Look at Me N
JoJo then
We went back down
Cause whatever you
Blood Is Thicker T
Who's the Sucker a
Their Red-Headed S
aingot.com
I'm not very good
<<      >>
aidood.com/) * Design: [http://tympanus.net/codrops/2012/12/15/creative-responsive-...](http://tympanus.net/codrops/2012/12/15/creative-responsive-websites-in-2012/) More... ------ rambambam_ There is a lot of work still to be done in the development of HTML5 spec. Mozilla should use their resources to add features to the upcoming versions of FF & Webkit and leave the details like this to more complete web engines like Silverlight. ~~~ natesm It isn't easy for browsers to compete because the people making browsers are working in a collaborative environment that requires much lower resource use. The idea that 'browsers are the new operating systems' is a great idea, but it's not being achieved by most browsers. ~~~ danabramov There's a difference between the browser and its UI. For example Safari used to be a lot of fun in text boxes where you can type anything, but now the OSX UI has been _heavily_ customized. And Chrome's customization is an order of magnitude less than Safari's. These things are much harder to customize. I don't see a browser UI becoming a standard. As for "low resource use" — that's also something very relative. I mean that it takes 1MB of RAM to run just a text box on a web page, and the system UI needs a _lot_ more memory to even run a menu. ------ marijn Since I'm working in an environment where we're about to use some HTML5 stuff, I've been waiting to see whether anything like this would be needed. I have some HTML/CSS skills but only enough to make workarounds here and there. I don't have any good practical HTML/CSS skills, just a working knowledge of languages (PHP, Javascript) and a working one of libraries (jQuery). I'm sure it will all work out in the end, but it seems that there are a lot of moving parts here. If I'm going to use HTML5 I need to go through and research the state of the art for every single of the areas mentioned. There's also the issue that different browsers implement it in subtly different ways. When I can't look it up right away, I'd need to spend more time figuring out how it actually is supposed to work. ------ eelco I'm not sure if the article is saying that you shouldn't, but to be honest, I'm not sure when it would be a good idea to use those properties directly. The article and most of the comments here seem to be about the "aesthetics/usability" of implementing the HTML5 features. Of course, now that the spec is in place, it is very likely that many of these properties will be useful to implement anyway (some, like 'section', already exist). And once implemented, we can take these as inspiration for other properties, like 'grid' or 'page-break'. At this point, we don't even need to worry about the implementation, because the properties we're using have been implemented in the browsers, the reference works (including this site) already have those properties available. And there's really no other way to handle this. A new HTML 5 feature only exists when it's implemented. Once implemented you can use it and rely on it. If you're building something that relies on that property and you want to make it look nicer, of course it would be best to not use it if you don't have to, but I'd argue that it would be better to use the HTML5 properties instead of not using them at all. As they are already supported and ready to use. ------ jeffclark I agree with everything mentioned here -- but I'd say that there is even more to the story. The fact is, the browsers will never be able to compete with the native OS native UIs for a lot of UI things. The web is a platform for the web and platforms are hard, especially when the other shoe hasn't dropped yet, i.e. lots of native developers haven't figured out how to properly harness the web. To an extent, this is what CSS has been for us. It's a layer that allows us to do more than what web _designers_ think we should be doing. So this isn't a "progressive enhancement" issue -- it's a problem with the very concept of the web. ------ the_unknown My main concern is that if the web becomes more similar to native apps, it becomes harder for me to build a site on my own without a ton of support from a huge company. I don't have time to learn what every little property does and see what's up with each browser and I certainly don't have time to test on IE6. This makes me feel like I'm stuck with a giant company or a company with time to spend on the bleeding edge if I want to add to the web in an open way. I'm more than willing to make the effort but I'd like to see this change and still keep the flexibility. ------ joe-mccann To some extent, the web is moving to more of a native-app paradigm. If you're creating an app for multiple platforms then you need to consider their respective paradigms of UI as they may be different. For instance, iOS doesn't use the native webkit but rather something called WebKit (similar to Blink from Android). Additionally, JavaScript on the web can also be interpreted as a native library on each browser. Thus, building an app that spans multiple browsers is challenging. ------ jws I'd love to see HTML5 take a cue from Silverlight, where you can provide an executable installation that only loads in an html page when you need it. Then you can load your html content into the control, it will run in the same security sandbox as your page, but it can do things that aren't possible in HTML5, like access the file system or manipulate the browser cache. ------ nathell The real problem is that IE won't be a WebKit and IE won't be a Gecko. Moreover, the rendering engines in the future versions of Chrome will not be an exact re-implementation of what they already are, given Chrome's focus on performance. The first is already known and a concern. IE may end up being so far behind in terms of features, that it might never recover, ever. And the Webkit/Gecko standards may end up not being relevant to Chrome, like how it's not implemented in Konqueror. ~~~ CognitiveLens I think it's more a question of "which browsers are going to be the most used in the future", than it is "how much behind is IE going to be". In my opinion, that will be determined by the fact that web applications will continue to dominate the space, and IE will only gradually lose marketshare as people continue to find it unsuitable for a growing number of their tasks. ------ ricardobeat In general, he is right. There's lots of stuff I can only dream of these days because I don't have time to implement it, not because I'm incapable of doing so. There are no resources to find out why IE 9 behaves like this, or what they've introduced in CSS3. If you are into that stuff it seems logical to use those properties, until IE adopts a better feature set than all the others. It may take years though; web standards are moving pretty fast. ~~~ andrewflnr One example: In my experience, it's nearly impossible to reliably position floating elements without doing it wrong the first time. Even the examples that I found on w3c were full of bugs. I really hope that someone takes it on. ~~~ ricardobeat CSS3 has plenty of positioning examples: ~~~ nilliams No IE compat yet AFAIK. ------ jws The best path is to let browsers experiment on their own and evolve the web. I wouldn't count on any new standard or library to make this any easier. ------ vail130 > And the best part of this is, that they all work together: If I add a style, >