Why HTML5 rocks now ?
If just use one word to answer, I think probably it will be "cross-platform".
You can build products using HTML5 one time , distribute for different platform such as Web and iPad etc.
But after some research, I found that several problems with HTML5 family tech
Not robust : there are a lot of randomness , and not easy to control
Storgage limited : even no clear answer for max size (?) , and sure there are limitation of storage
Not best user interaction : compared with native iOS app
Any other problems you think ?
And if you are HTML5 guru,maybe you will correct some wrong understanding of mine.
The biggest problem for me is that right now HTML5 is not a standard. It's not even a complete specification.
But this has always been the problem with building web applications; everyone implements them to different degrees of completeness, and you have to be constantly vigilant of implementation variations.
If I end up having to maintain multiple versions of the same code for each browser anyway, I start to question whether the "it works everywhere" argument is even sound anymore.
I need to make an if statement using Ruby that checks to see if the client's browser support HTML5 or not.
Short version: you won't be able to, nor should you.
Long version: It may be possible, if you do some user-agent sniffing, to identify whether or not the user's browser supports HTML5 or not. But this would take a fair amount of effort to get right. The better solution is to use something like Modernizr (http://www.modernizr.com/) to do your feature detection on the client-side.
It's possible to read the browser info based on the HTTP_USER_AGENT string, but, as mentioned above and many other places, it's also really easy to spoof that info. On the server-side we only cared because it gave us an overall view of the client browsers being used to access our sites.
Trying to react to a browser on the backend and present different content was tried by sites for a while, but it fails because of how browsers spoof other browsers, but don't have the same bugs.
As #Stephen Orr said, CSS is a better way of dealing with it. Sure it's hell and still error-prone, but it's better than sniffing the browser's signature. We used to cuss every release of IE because it broke the previous fixes. Luckily things seem to be getting better as the vendors creep toward toeing standards.
Most features can be detected (with JavaScript), but some kinds like the form-date-feature field is a problem: http://united-coders.com/matthias-reuter/user-agent-sniffing-is-back
It is possible to do Feature detection on HTML5, to detect single features from HTML5 as you need them. There is, however, no way to detect if a browser supports HTML5 as one big chunk - as there is no "official" way to tell if a browser supports all of HTML5 or just parts of it.
< [html5 element] id="somethingtobedazzledby">
Upgrade your browser
</ [html5 element] >
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I wonder if I were to develop a mobile Web app (now, in two weeks, or in a month), which one should I go for? Which one would you mobile Web developers go for?
If jQM 1.0 were officially released today, I would most likely embrace it (as long as it actually delivers what it promises). Now that it is in alpha, I wonder whether it is worth to jump into it yet for a commercial grade project? Would Sencha Touch be a better alternative?
Sencha Touch is an application framework (you create your interface programmatically through Javascript) while jQuery Mobile is more of a mobile enhancement library (you write regular HTML for your content, then add jQuery mobile for transitions/animations). jQuery Mobile has an easier learning curve, but Sencha Touch can better simulate "native" apps.
The first question you need to ask yourself is what is the purpose of the application. If you want to release an application for sales on one of the retail outlets (iTunes, Andoid App store), or you need access to device specific functions that are not accessible via local APIs yet (accelerometer, camera, contacts, etc) then you should be thinking Native or one of the hybrid solutions (Appcelerator, PhoneGap, etc.).
If your audience is going to be more in the "mobile web" space, such as a mobile version of a corporate web desktop site, or intranet web application port, then you should be looking at Sencha Touch and jQuery Mobile. The decision between those two is really going to be based on you development experience and and what you feel more comfortable with. Sencha Touch is a VERY robust platform that has a Desktop (ExtJS) and mobile (Sencha Touch) that mirror each other so knowing one pretty much allows you to get up and running with the other. Also, Sencha has moved to an MVC model on the client which really helps to organize client side code and make it much more congruent with server-side development platforms.
The post above is actually incorrect, using the MVC pattern on the client combined with the historyUrl on your dispatch commands gives you the ability to use the browser back and forward buttons of the browser, so that is not exclusive to jQuery Mobile. Also, the Sencha Team's suite of products includes a Designer application that provides Designer which is a WYSIWYG editor that allows for the drag and drog creation of UIs. This company's roadmap has them in the process of updating the Designer app to allow for the drag and drop design of Touch mobile screens and application that will function with the MVC pattern. They are also getting ready to release a new version of the Sencha Command tool that will automatically generate entire MVC application structures for you in a matter of minutes, which you can then add the necessary custom code to round out your application. Lastly, the new SASS theming capabilities allow designers to use CSS3 and SASS config files along with variables and Mixins to generate cross-browser CSS style sheets for your application.
So, the decision of which way to go for the mobile web development question comes down to how comfortable you are with object oriented javascript. If you are very comfortable with it, then Sencha Touch is the way to go as it very extensible class system built into the core engine that can be customized to your hearts content...but if you have minimal experience with JS and you want the server to deliver your UI and don't mind seeing the Address bar drop down to move between pages (less web 2.0 looking), then jQueryMobile is the way to go.
It's pretty obvious that I am biased to Sencha Touch due to its well thought out class structure, extensibility, very active user community, web/mobile continuity, and constant improvement to the core framework and new tools that simplify development efforts. And not to mention that the Touch platform is more mature as jQM has not reached production mode yet.
I've been using jQuery mobile for a while now. It works well under Blackberry 6, iPhone, and Android.
I wrote an article about it here: jQuery mobile alpha
Though it's alpha, they are showing good progress. I've been looking into their development in github, seems like there's going to be cool stuff by early 2011.
UPDATE 2011-12-01 jQuery Mobile relased version 1.0, finally out of alpha. Read more about it here: http://jquerymobile.com/blog/2011/11/16/announcing-jquery-mobile-1-0/
If you're going to make a mobile version of a website, I am going to use jQuery Mobile. If you're going to make a “native” mobile application, I will be more likely use Sencha Touch.
http://tysonlloydcadenhead.com/blog/jquery-mobile-vs-sencha-touch
Sencha touch has lived longer than jquerymobile but I found that jquerymobile handles device back button much better than SenchaTouch.
I always consider back/history button handling is important in my apps, so I prefer jquerymobile.
I always consider myself a JavaScript programmer, but I like the fact that I rarely need to to type any JavaScript code when I use jquerymobile.
jquerymobile design is brilliant IMHO.
I am also in favor of sencha, JQM is really slow and failed to give an impression of an native app.
Praveen
why limit yourself...
Look into PhoneGap and Titanium Appcelerator
the make the comparison based on what you are trying to accomplish. I know Sencha Touch has a licensing fee and like you said jQM is not officially released yet.
This is a great time to be in the mobile space because there are so many viable options
I think jQuery mobile is easier to learn and seems to be very promising. Version 1.0 is not yet available, but its going to be a good product. I find it very attractive because it is based on jQuery - simplicity is the motto
Don't forget that there is also Dojo Toolkit Mobile. It looks nice, at least at first look and it is built on top of the proven and solid Dojo Toolkit core. http://dojotoolkit.org/features/mobile.
The Dojo Toolkit don't get too much audience recently but it looks like they made a lot of progress from the times it was a bit heavy, I think it is worth looking at it.
I've been trying out the sencha architect and to be honest ithas been a nightmare to get running.
My background is DotNet, html, javascript, VB, java and have been using eclipse etc for a while so am not a huge newbie with figuring out dependencys etc.
Here is what I have struck:
I went to the Sench site, downloaded Architect.
It then got me to download toolkit and sencha touch. I downlaoded exactly what was recommend / instructed by the help files / site.
I have Sencha Architect V2.1.0 Build 584., sencha-touch-2.0.1.1-commercial.zip, SenchaSDKTools-2.0.0-beta3-windows.exe
I also downloaded and installed a new java sdk / run time etc. The install has been done on a dead clean XP box (vmware). Web server is xampp.
Sencha does not recognise the SenchaSDKTools-2.0.0-beta3. You have to hack it using hard to find instructions. Even after hacking it the architect fails to use the proper SDK and gives error messages on deployment.
There have also been numerous errors to figure out along the way and issues where data just wont load even having followed instructions to the letter.
I have spent 11 hours getting to the point where the application will run properly without whinging but it wont deploy. It is bad enough learning a new tool / framework etc without the ide causing grief and the "instructional demos" leading you up the path.
There are lots of people getting the same errors all over.
After 15 hours of effort I am giving it up as a bad job and am returning to IBM XPages / PHP and Blueprint CSS with old fashioned, hand coded html5 / CSS3 and jquery / Ajax / JSon apps.
My reason for doing this: Application Architect keeps pushing you back to the command line. I love the command line, give me a bash shell and vi and I'm good to go. However for complex, multi file deplyoments such as mobile apps a good IDE is worth its weight in gold. Architect is not there yet. I keep needing to lift the hood and hack to get things working.
I originally looked at Sencha for a 12 year old who is interested in mobile apps and is looking for an ide to use. I tried it out - it is not suitable - even getting a hello world type app running is going to be too much for a newbie and the first app in the help files doesnt explain itself but has you copying code for pulling data from a web site you have to sign up for. (ccitybars app).
A big improvement for sencha will be when Architect works out of the box (possibly an installer with sdk, tools , touch and architect all in one) and the fisrt app -walk through is a simple hello world that then builds to entering data, saving data and then displaying data before going multi form.
I was faced with the same choice about half a year ago, then went for jQTouch instead of Sencha Touch, which I found to be extremely Javascript centered. I'm currently working on a port of that same project to jQuery Mobile and I think the transition will be much smoother than it would have been with a Sencha Touch project.
If you know basic PHP I strongly suggest jqmphp.com. Up and running in less than 3 days a whole online mobile based site to order food!
MoSync team has recently done an interesting comparison:
Which Mobile JavaScript framework is the best: jQuery Mobile, Sencha Touch, jQtouch, or Kendo UI?
http://www.codefessions.com/2012/04/mobile-javascript-frameworks-evaluation.html
http://www.codefessions.com/2012/04/which-mobile-javascript-framework-is.html
http://www.codefessions.com/2012/05/which-mobile-javascript-framework-is.html
jQueryMobile wins but huge boost in arm is because of licensing. I prefer jQueryMobile because I don't want someone(thing) else to write my markup, that way hacking becoming difficult (at least for me), however, I do have couple of HTML5 apps under my belt now, one each in jQM and Sencha Touch. Sencha Touch makes it smoother, very hard to learn though while jQM gets you started in a day, there are bug but you usually get around them because of amazing web community around this framework.
I've built a nice production app in a few days using Sencha Touch 2.0 and it's delivering as documented. And, it's FAST. There might be some bugs, but, when I've run into one (which, is rarely), there seemed to be many ways to approach a solution so that it's really not that relevant.
Sencha Touch looks great but it is difficult to use. The Sencha support forums offer minimal support. Sencha Touch 2.x is still in alpha is quite buggy
Sencha touch will be the best option is you are just starting because it is well documented and it has a community support. Also, with phonegap, you spend more time on the development and less on things about other mobile platforms. Phonegap will build the application for you , once you upload it to the builder .
Comparing the two is like comparing apples and grapes...though you want to develop mobile apps with both, the level of comfort with either depends entirely on you.
This chart might be helpful if you want to compare the features : http://www.markus-falk.com/mobile-frameworks-comparison-chart/
Sencha Touch based apps can only work on WebKit based browsers. JQueryMobile based apps can work on all mobile web browsers.
I think you can go ahead with JQueryMobile for next 2 to 3 years. I am expecting in 2-3 years all mobile browsers will be based on WebKit engine. Once all mobile browsers start supporting WebKit, move to the Sench Touch mainly because of very good quality user interface.
I suggest KendoUI
It is unbeatable and fast performance in a training of couple of days. Not to mention the fast update and new features and support for server side wrappers (asp.net, php, jsp). It is unique!
I have used both and they each have conditions where one is better suited then the other.
In my opinion you would use JQueryMobile when
1. You need a quick and light weight mobile implementation of an web application.
2. You have time constraints (definitely faster to learn and implement then Sencha Touch).
3. Native look and feel is not a requirement.
When making an extension to an existing web application where relatively simple functionalities have to be extended to extended to mobile (really fast and easy) I found JQM to be extremely useful and straight forward.
In my opinion you would use sencha when
1. You want a native look and feel
2. You want a higher degree of functionality on the mobile side (possible access to native api's through phone gap)
3. Targeting the latest smartphones (performance is impressive)
I'm looking to revamp our mobile site with something simple for phones below the ambiguous smart phone category and something a little more interesting for the phones above this category. I'm not interested in WAP/WML for this project. I'm building a ASP.Net 4 MCV 2 app and using MBDF
What I'd like to know is how best to define this differentiation when using MBDF? Screen size, Javascript, SpportsTouchScreen etc. are all in MBDF along with others but I'm not sure where to draw the line and where the data is most accurate for the broad number of devices.
What do those of you out there developing for this spread of hardware & software split on?
Thanks,
Denis
P.S. I've done my research on xHTML MP1.0 - 1.2 and the best practises for implementation to ensure broad coverage but I don't want to restrict the newer phones out there to what the base line can see.
I personally use simple mobile browser dedection script and limit max screen width to 240px. I also use simple AJAX and JavaScript calls too.
Above setup works fine for 90% of my visitors but my sites aren't business critical sites.
You can try http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ but .net api is not as good as PHP one
So after a bit of testing myself I think I'm going to stick with testing if they support JavaScript and Touch using the MBDF. This line in the sand isn't perfect but it seems like the best out there to me.
Here is a neat little tutorial on Browser Detection using JavaScript
Browser Detection
I'd like to use a non-standard web font to improve the appearance of my HTML.
Is it preferable to embed a web font or use something like sifr?
My understanding is sifr is a flash-based viewer for vector fonts but I've been reluctant to try it because it seems somewhat complicated.
There does not seem to be a lot of encouraging talk about web font embedding (because of legal issues) so maybe sifr is more of a standard way to do this?
Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.
Web fonts are supported in Safari 3.1, the upcoming Firefox 3.5 and the upcoming Opera 10. Internet Explore has supported a (different) format since IE4.
At this point, the biggest problems with the implementation in Safari, Firefox and Opera is that they require you to upload the original font file to your web server. For many fonts, this would constitute a violation of the license you received from the type foundry. Therefore, web fonts right now are not an appropriate solution if the type foundry has not given you permission to use them. However, there are freely licensed fonts available.
This leaves us with roughly three other options: images, Flash, and JavaScript-based solutions. Images are often preferable in that they have minimal impact with regards to browser quirks and performance, however dynamic image generation in, say, PHP often does not look as good as other solutions. You could of course manually create images in Photoshop, but that would usually defeat the purpose.
sIFR uses Flash to render the text, and is quite flexible in that you can select the text, change it dynamically, and have some control over the styling of nested HTML elements. Hoefler & Frere-Jones has given sIFR the OK, provided you pay for a server license and take all possible measures in limiting the sIFR Flash movie to your domain name.
Cufón is a purely JavaScript solution that has implemented its own rendering engine, which is insanely clever. At this point its not as flexible as sIFR, and its legal issues are still unclear.
That said, images, sIFR and Cufón are all hacks, and we need proper web fonts yesterday.
(Disclaimer: I'm the lead developer of sIFR, so I might be somewhat biased.)
You could also consider the JS alternative(s). However, for best cross browser compatibility you're better off using images and perhaps a background-image and text-indent CSS trick to replace static text with your images.
The technique I mentioned above (and others) can be read here: http://css-tricks.com/nine-techniques-for-css-image-replacement/
Something to consider:
For every visitor who sees your 'better looking' fonts, there are just as many who won't due to having an incompatible browser or disabling that feature. Having just the right font probably isn't the most valuable design change you could work on.
Written from my mobile browser which doesn't do embedded fonts.
Note that CSS3 Web Fonts module, which defines font embedding is still a Working Draft. Indeed, the practical support of font embedding isn't good. I'd say it's better to wait another 2-3 years.
Also worth nothing: TypeKit, a service that gives you a line of JavaScript to abstract all of this away.