The first working draft of HTML 5 is here!

The first working draft of HTML 5 is here! In this article, Anne van Kesteren takes a look at the release and what it means for the future of the Web, and provides links to some of the best in-depth resources available.

( Read the article )

A great day!

PS: The article has zero instances of grammatical "its"

Could you link to some sources where I can learn more about Opera's handling of server-sent events? Can this be used with a current Opera (beta?) to write AJAX-push/Comet applications? Are there any support for persistent server-connections?

http://cometdaily.com/2008/01/10/the-future-of-comet-part-2-html-5’s-server-sent-events/ has some information on how it works and how you could use it.

I just hate to see that, for some unknown reason.

@anne, you missed "from it's creator, Opera software developer Tim Johansson"

The "it's" versus "its" thingies have been introduced by the almighty editor I'm afraid. ;-)

Can you say anything about client-side storage in reference to Opera?

We're looking into, but we're waiting for that part of the specification to mature a little bit more before we do anything with it.

This is great news! but HTML 5 is still a draft that is being discussed. In fact we have to wait a bit till it becomes the W3C recommendation.

very good new, very hope that OPERA will be the first who will be able to use all new technologies and features of HTML

What dear friends, we have only to wait

Originally posted by anne:

We're looking into, but we're waiting for that part of the specification to mature a little bit more before we do anything with it.

Since the release of the IE8 beta, this made Opera the only browser without support for client-side storage (of safari, ff, and IE).

Firefox and Internet Explorer both implement the old version of the specification and Safari is requesting changes to the new version. Waiting with supporting it is a feature at this point :-)

Originally posted by anne:

Waiting with supporting it is a feature at this point

For those wanting the missing functionality, it is not a feature. This would be a convenient way to store settings for userjs scripts instead of the current cookie hacks in place. As we've been needing something along those lines for quite a while, even an old implementation would be better than none at all to the end users.

I don't think implementing something that we know will change is useful to invest resources in at this point. There are more important matters to focus on.

HTML 5 arrives. Only, when? How many is it needed yet for expectation? When will begin that is all, where developers of browsers. It new good, but while it is indeed needed to participate in anything main, fully support Anne

Originally posted by anne:

There are more important matters to focus on

It seems this is the response to most of my requests. C'est la vie.

Originally posted by anne:

I don't think implementing something that we know will change is useful to invest resources in at this point. There are more important matters to focus on.

Keep in mind that this missing functionality (and this mindset) is negatively affecting the userjs community.

Implementing functionality while being completely aware of the fact that the the specification of it will change is just not a wise move. In fact, if we had to change our implementation it would also negatively affect the userjs community as existing scripts would break, which would not be nice. (Also, it's too late for Opera 9.5 anyhow and has been for the past several months.)

Originally posted by anne:

it's too late for Opera 9.5 anyhow and has been for the past several months.

I see. You said you were waiting for it to mature. What stage does it need to get to before I can bug you (opera) more officially? I think the work on it would mean a lot to the userjs community. Letting us know in advance about the change would have sufficed. If Opera already had client-side storage and you post in a blog/forum/some other public place, that we were switching to a newer model then you would have shed your responsibility and placed it on the userjs maintainers. Optimally, I would not like to wait until client side storage is perfect for Opera to implement it. Just like they didn't wait for dragonfly to be perfect. Showing good faith to the community carries a lot of weight. Just like i know the kestrel snapshots are incomplete and could change at anytime, i would have like to been using client side storage already. I know you are saying that it is double (or more) the work to implement twice and i understand that... but I'm not sure you understand my point of view having to hack a way to reproduce firefox, ie, and safari functionality into Opera. Not something I'm proud of when people ask why Opera is the only browser on the market that doesn't/can't do X (client side storage, js clipboard access, oncontextmenu, onunload) but that's a whole different can of worms.

To summarize, I see your point in the development process but from the other side of the fence, waiting still sucks.

(I am not upset and not trying to be offensive. I'm not sure if that was clear.)

Originally posted by fearphage:

Since the release of the IE8 beta, this made Opera the only browser without support for client-side storage (of safari, ff, and IE).

ahah !
Like you didn't knew IE's transactional implementation, which the only thing common with the spec is the naming.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc197062(VS.85).aspx

IE8 does not implement HTML5 globalStorage but IE8 globalStorage.. nothing new here. It's like saying that IE8 implements XHR+CDR because it has their crippled version of XDomainRequest

Now we have draft 4, maybe we will have next year the official release. The step from 4.1 to 5 need about 10 years. Thats a very loooooooooong time.