Embracing the web's next-generation "markup language" - HTML 5 - Google is prepping versions of its online office apps that also work offline. Up to a point. As Google revealed in February, it's already built an HTML 5 version of the five-year-old Gmail that runs on the downsized browsers of devices like the Apple iPhone and …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections

This topic is closed for new posts.

Friday 3rd April 2009 19:20 GMT Aaron

HTML 5? Really?

Since when does a hypertext markup language need a local data cache? W3C need to change the name of the standard -- what they're doing might, y'know, involve HTML as a presentation language, but it sounds like what they're actually *designing* is a Web 2.0 application platform.

Because that's *just* what the world needs right now, I'm sure.

0 0
Friday 3rd April 2009 21:33 GMT Anonymous Coward

Missed the point?

I think the presentation missed the point, a pretty darned big, huge and hoomungus point.

It is not interesting for developers but it is essential for end users (where end users = customers, people that part with dosh to buy into the technology).

For mobile apps that have a dependency upon some wifi, 3G, 4G, ... XG connectivity doesn't it seem grossly apparent that no connectivity = a bit of dead metal?

0 0
Saturday 4th April 2009 13:31 GMT Chris

cross platform

The biggest point for me was the cross platform compatibilities. Its about time we started having some standards (I mean in that several ways) in the software industry.

As an end user (ok a technical one) should I really be interested in having to know whch out of the 100s of software versions I need for my exact version of phone and software version. With Symbian you need to know if its s40 s60 s80 then what edition it is and sometimes what FP it is... For me its easy for most people its not.

I hate IT departments.

0 0
Saturday 4th April 2009 20:03 GMT Matt Bradley

@Aaron

As I read it, the purpose of HTML5 is to provide additional markup handlers that bypass the necessity for acres of Javascript / AJAX code, enabling asynchronous data exchanges to be handled by HTML alone using common standard.

I don't think this necessarily break the idea of HTML as presentational model. Data processing will still be done by server side scripting, etc.

Personally, I see this as a very good thing. The current programming model that we've got for web applications (using a combination of XHTML, Javascript, XML, JSON, and third party DOM abstraction libraries such as jQuery), is a complete mess. It can best be described as an interim solution for a problem which can (and will) be solved much more elegantly by a much more cohesive standard.

0 0
Sunday 5th April 2009 15:53 GMT Camilla Smythe

Meh

It's called 'Application Streaming'.

Citrix does it, Symantec does it, Microsoft does it. That is your closed shop... they don't want to let you do it. End of story.

Apart from the Google.... oh, sorry. When I said End of Story I really meant it.

0 0
Monday 6th April 2009 10:57 GMT Nameless Faceless Computer User

wonderful

Sounds like HTML 5 will be fertile ground for the next generation of virus and worm authors. Bravo.

0 0
Monday 6th April 2009 11:52 GMT Simon B

entire world moving to mobile - whidh world would that be then?

"I think the entire world is moving to mobile. Mobile is the most personal of all personal computers," he told 2.0'Reilly.

I Think he talks shit!

0 0
Monday 6th April 2009 19:20 GMT FaberfoX

What you don't get

Aaron, like hell it does, whether you like it or not, the web has gone 2.0, it's logical for HTML to follow.

Camilla, you are missing the point completely, this is about offline, I'd like to see you 'app streaming' offline. If this is what I wanted I could do vnc, x forwarding, nx or even rdp for free.

Simon, not only is the world going mobile, it's also about to get away from wintel on the last front, the pc, first with netbooks / MIDs and then with everything else. The phone has already been lost by microsoft and unless fuel cells go commercial soon, intel's chance to get in the market looks pretty far away.

This is what the world needs, total freedom on both the back and frontends, with clear, open standards.

If you want to stick to wintel and limit your choices, (for a while) you will be free to do so, but in the end it won't keep making sense.

I for one welcome our new armlinux overlords.

0 0
Thursday 9th April 2009 14:14 GMT Camilla Smythe

@FaberfoX

"Camilla, you are missing the point completely, this is about offline, I'd like to see you 'app streaming' offline. If this is what I wanted I could do vnc, x forwarding, nx or even rdp for free."

And what part of "Application Streaming" in the 'Offline' sense would you like to see. Is that the part where you set up the user permissions so that they can use the Streamed Copy of the software, that, incidently, has been installed on their computer..... Offline?

Would you care to explain how your client side screen scraping server side execution manages to achieve that. No, because it doesn't.

WEB2.0 Java/Flash et al has until recently been stuck in the cloud because it has been stuck in the browser. This is why it has only been able to offer toy software. If Google and others ever reached the stage where they can write fully fledged applications then they may as well compile it, package it, pull it out of the browser and stream it to the desktop where it belongs.

Next time you choose to prance about the place accusing others of missing the point 'completely' just check yourself before you do and go get a 2x4 clue.

Numpty.

xxx

0 0