The Edge of HTML5
html5-demos.appspot.com
html5-demos.appspot.com
I was reading HN on an iPad and couldn't even read the slides. This shit happens all the time, and it's very annoying when you don't have a laptop in reach. There's an amazingly capable browser on every modern phone/tablet and yet they're left out of some content for no reason (and they even use webkit too).
Requiring IE10 to showcase IE10's new abilities makes sense, but this isn't a demo. Is it the edge of HTML5 or the edge of Chrome?
But it is important to understand that you need an uptodate browser to view webpages today. Gracefully handling obsolete browsers is what got us into this mess in the first place (actually it was allowing anything less than completely correct pages -- you can't have syntax errors in your c code and expect it to compile, why should your HTML be any different).
Things like this presentation are the actual reason we got into "this mess". Making your pages accessible to everyone is a necessity. I don't mean to be impolite, but you need to revisit your concepts. HTML5 is all about gracefully handling mark-up errors in a consistent way, not the opposite. HTML is originally a language for authors, not programmers. You're thinking of XHTML vs HTML, and that's a completely different matter.
On the other hand ie9 is already obsolete.
And how exactly does HTML gracefully handle a lack of canvas?
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
This might be the edge of HTML5, but is regression of the internet. Remember the "This site should be viewed in IE5 or higher"? I hated it back then, I hate it now.That said, I do think Chrome Frame is a bad idea because it hijacks one browser and turns it into a weird hybrid instead of just encouraging the use of Chrome in the first place.
These presentations are meant for developers and it's safe to assume that anyone experimenting with HTML5 will have access to Chrome, even if it's not their go-to browser.
"the start image has a global alpha applied to it equal to (1-p), the end image has a global alpha applied to it equal to p, and the end image is then composited over the start image with the source-over operation." (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-css3-images-20110217/#cross-fad...)
There are many people working on the Web specs from various groups, and they are very critical. Anything that's added to a draft will undergo a lot of review so you'd be hard pressed to find something glaringly useless.
[edit: When I think about this a bit more, there is one time when cross-fade is useful: For cross-fading between two semitransparent images. In that case though, what’s wanted is not really a compositing operation at all, but rather a straight linear interpolation between the respective RGBA components of the two images.]
I don’t at all believe that people working on the color and graphics aspects of web specs are sufficiently critical. In general, those aspects have been quite under-specced, and browser implementations have been incomplete and buggy. Things are improving little by little, but to take one example, there is still no proper color management of CSS/HTML colors in any browser except Firefox, and I believe it’s still turned off by default there.
Not a very bright future.