Archive for October, 2011

Using Polyfill to cover up the cracks in HTML5

October 23, 2011

Long gone are the days when Internet Explorer had 95% of the browser market. We have lived in multi-browser world since the start of the web. Whilst this has its plus point, it also has its downsides – none more so than ensuring backwards compatibility. Using HTML5 today is not simply a case of does the browser support it or not, but what aspects of the huge specification does it support and to what extent. A good site for seeing the various levels of support across browser releases, against different areas of the HTML5 specification can be found at

The W3C’s answer to developers creating solutions with HTML5 is that the new features of the spec should “gracefully degrade” when used in older browsers. Essentially this means the new markup or API is ignored and doesn’t cause the page to crash. Developers should test and develop backwards compatibility. This can be an onerous task. However help is at hand with libraries like Modernizr you can detect what features of HTML5 the browser supports.

Once you know that the browser doesn’t support a HTML5 feature you have used you can write or use a 3rd party “polyfill”. In HTML, a polyfill is essentially code that is used to provide alternative behaviour to simulate HTML5 features in a browser that does not support that particular feature. There are lots of sites providing polyfills for different parts of the HTML5 spec, a pretty good one can be found here it lists lots of libraries covering almost all parts of the specification.

For me a big concern is that I’ve not yet been able to find a single provider that gives you polyfills for the whole of HTML5, or even the majority of the specification. This could mean that you have to use several different libraries, which may or may not be compatible with each other. Another big concern is that each polyfill will provide varying levels of browser backwards compatibility i.e. some will support back to IE 6 and some not.

With users moving more of their browsing towards smartphones and tablets which typically have the latest browser technology supporting HTML5, backwards compatibility may not be an issue. However it will be several years before the HTML5 spec is complete, and even then there are new spec’s being created all the time within the W3C. So far from being a temporary fix the use of polyfills will become a standard practice in web development, unless of course you take the brave stance of saying your application is only supported on HTML5 browsers.

However this does raise another question, if you can simulate HTML5 behaviour do you need to start using HTML5 at all to create richer applications? The answer is quite possibly not, but having one will certainly improve your user experience and make development of your rich internet applications simpler.

HTML5 The proprietary standard

October 16, 2011

The good thing about standards is that they are uniform across different vendor implementation. Well that is at least the primary goal. So how does a vendor make a standard proprietary?

Well it’s quite easy really you provide extensions to the standard for features that are not yet implemented in the standard. Vendors wouldn’t be that unscrupulous would they? For example would they create application servers following standards but add their own extensions to “hook you in”, sorry I mean to add value beyond what the standards provide ;o)

I’m sure Microsoft’s announcement at Build to allow developers to create Windows 8 Metro applications using HTML5 and Javascript took many Microsoft developers by surprise. What is Microsoft’s game plan with this?

Optimists will cry that it opens Metro development out to the wider base of web developers rather than just to the closed Microsoft community. Cynic’s will argue that it is an evil ploy for Microsoft to play the open card whilst actually hooking you into their proprietary OS. In the cynics corner a good example is Microsoft’s defiant stance of Direct3D versus the open standard alternative OpenGL. This has lead to Google developing Angle, effectively allowing OpenGL calls to be translated into Direct3D ones so that the same programmes can be run on Microsoft platforms.

Whatever it is developers aiming for cross platform conformance will need to stay sharp to ensure that proprietary extensions do not make the application incompatible in different environments.

Adobe’s recent donation of CSS Shaders shows a more charitable approach whereby extensions are donated back to the standards bodies to make the “value added” features available to every platform. This is largely the approach in which standards evolve, with independent committee’s validating vendor contributions.

So what is Microsoft’s game? It’s too early to really say whether there is an altruistic angle on their support for HTML5 and JS, but history has shown us that the empire is not afraid to strike back. Look at their collaboration with IBM on OS/2 leading them to leave IBM in lurch with their own launch of Windows NT. A similar approach occurred not long after with with Sybase and Sql Server.

I maybe a cynic, but having been a Windows developer from Windows 1.0 to Windows NT and following a road of promises and U turns has made me that way when it comes to Microsoft. It’s great to see increasing support for HTML5 but I am always a little concerned with the motivations of the Redmond camp. However perhaps I myself need to be “open” to a different Microsoft, one that is embracing standards even though it may cannibalize it’s own Silverlight technology.

The BBC does a U turn on HTML5

October 12, 2011

Rewind to August 13th 2010 and Erik Huggers Director of BBC Future and Technology blogged that the the BBC were committed to open standards but “HTML5 is starting to sail off course”.

At the time I thought this was a brave statement to make especially as the late Steve Jobs had already announced in April that year and despite a billion app downloads, that HTML5 negated the need for many proprietary browser plug-ins. It was clear at the time this was squared largely at Flash (and possibly Silverlight too).

For me this was a faux pas too far as Huggers continued his blog with statements about proprietary implementations of HTML5 by Apple and fractions of opinions within the W3C and WHAT-WG (who initiated the development of HTML5).

Now fast forward to almost exactly a year later, and Gideon Summerrfield, Executive Product Manager for BBC iPlayer announces the launch of a HTML5 version of iPlayer. Initially this is just aimed at PS3, but will roll out to other devices in the future.

If we take a slight diversion and look at the developer conferences for both Microsoft and Adobe in the last four weeks, both made big announcements about tools and support for HTML5. However committed developers with years of invested skills in SilverLight and Flash were left deflated with the lack of announcements on the future of these technologies.

So have the sleeping giants finally woke up? It seems like it to me.

However, in the case of the BBC, Summerfield’s blog states that they will also launch new versions of the iPlayer for Flash and Air. This may be a short term decision to wait for wider support for HTML5, but there is little clarity about what they see as the future for iPlayer.

To Hugger’s credit he did foresee the benefits of HTML5 could bring to the BBC in reducing development timescales and having a common skill set.

However I applaud those that have the courage and conviction to take bold steps forward and put their money where their mouth is. The FT is a shining example, ditching their AppStore versions for iDevices and completely moving to HTML5.

There is work to be done on HTML5 and it will evolve for some time yet, but the bandwagon has started to roll and as a good friend of mine said to me at the start of the .com era, “When you see the bandwagon starting to move, you have a choice to jump on, or stand in the way of a tonne of metal !”.

For me it is clear. I’m not standing in the middle of the road, I’m jumping squarely onto the HTML 5 bandwagon. The question is, are you?