So wait, you tried to rebuild a flash website in javascript for the purpose of drawing conclusions about HTML5? How does that work? I mean, Flash and HTML5 are made for different purposes and use cases and HTML5 is not JavaScript.
> the term "HTML5" is widely used as a buzzword to refer to modern web technologies
This is because HTML5 includes elements like canvas, which is useless without JavaScript, but JavaScript would also be much less useful in the browser without canvas. So "HTML5" is a useful shorthand for what is made possible with HTML5-level browsers https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/scripting-1.ht...
Only partly true, but I will ask again: What does reimplementing a Flash site in JS have to do with "HTML5 being ready"? How does HTML5 help you with rebuilding the same thing in _JS_? And why does that mean HTML5 is ready? Ready for what?
It still doesn't connect. You can use JS to manipulate an SVG and animate it. You could theoretically just move absolutely positioned colored divs around ... Or you could draw things on a canvas. Does that mean HTML5 "is ready" or "not ready"? It has got nothing to do with it. But yaaay! Lets go! Downvote a comment, which points out a flaw in logic!
You are not being downvoted because you point out logical flaws, you are being downvoted because you don’t contribute to the topic.
Are you not aware of the discussion about HTML5 versus Flash, or do you just disagree with using HTML5 as an umbrella term here? Even the Wikipedia article [0] about HTML5 has a section on Flash, discussing features such as sound, video, graphics and interactive elements. With "HTML5 being ready" I believe OP is referring to it being a viable alternative to Flash. There is a famous quote where Steve Jobs said that Flash is no longer needed, because there are viable alternatives to the features it provided – HTML5 among others.
I have never heard anyone use HTML5 as an "umbrella term" for meaning HTML5 + JS + CSS(3). Why would anyone do that? It is kind of silly to do that. That changes the whole meaning of the OP. Yes, I heavily disagree with such imprecise usage of terms, that changes the whole meaning. In that case my criticism would have been that the OP is not very clear / ambiguous.
I have heard several people use it for that umbrella term, particularly back in the days when I lurked around following the WHATWG and CSS mailing lists.
Consider that much of what is new in HTML5 vis-à-vis HTML4 is in the changes to its JS APIs (e.g., <canvas> is all about the JS API), and its requirement that browsers support other standards such as SVG. Actually distinguishing which component of the web stack actually has a particular improvement that you seek to use doesn't provide all that much value... what does it matter if it's really the WHATWG HTML spec that mandated it or it's the ES5 spec?
Instead, you can just call it all "HTML5" and understand that it's using newer technologies that won't work on legacy browsers, although we're now so far deep into the era that we don't have a terminology for what requires a 2020 browser versus a 2015 browser.
Ready to re-create the most amazing website in human history.
> You could theoretically just move absolutely positioned colored divs around
I would say that in practical terms, this would mean that HTML5 is not ready.
> Downvote a comment, which points out a flaw in logic!
You must be fun at parties ;)
But if you want my final verdict: I agree with others in the thread that HTML is not a good replacement for Flash. Creativity was much easier to express in Flash.
