Jon asks whether HTML5 should be adopted.
He kicks off the discussion talking about browser incompatibilities, proprietary technologies like Flash and Flex, and asking how much more difficult web application development becomes when rich media is thrown into the mix.
Most people have flash installed on their machines - they don’t realise that they’re using a proprietary plugin when they watch youtube videos. Flash also isn’t necessarily well supported in mobile devices and less mainstream platforms like Linux.
Browser incompatibility breaks the user experience, but is the problem that the browser is not compatible with the website, or that the website is not compatible with the browser? It’s often incorrectly reported, and how does it change the approach required?
The recent news that Windows 7 will not ship with Internet Explorer, potentially giving users a choice of browser. How could that choice be implemented, perhaps a list of browser options, IE vs. Firefox vs. Opera vs. Chrome? Would users choose to adopt a different browser given the choice, or has Internet Explorer’s uniquity in the market made Internet Explorer a synonym for web browsing. Would the non-technical web browser user really care what tool they use to do it, so long as it works?
Does Google have the web footprint to make or break HTML5?
Reference is made back to the stimulus talks - you can’t sell something unless users want or need it.
So, should the rich content that users want depend on proprietary technologies like Flash, or should the delivery mechanism be based entirely on open standards?
Flash is everywhere - most people have it on their desktops. To produce Flash content, on the other hand, can cost lots of money.
The discussion moved around the question of HTML5 vs. … to the interesting questions and discussion points around commercial and open source software.
Jon Rowe: HTML5 vs. …