Very cool CSS-powered infographic by Paul Irish and Divya Manian. Visit site »
A pretty great piece by Ben Ward discussing “web apps,” and how much of what is being talked about aren’t really “web apps” at all, because they’re a very different beast than the “interconnected bits of information” that make up the web. I think it’s fair to say that “web app” may not be the best name for these things — although I’m not sure what to call them, instead. I’m in full agreement with most of what Ben says — but this last line just doesn’t fly with me: “The idea of undermining the core function of the web to achieve that is detestable.” I fail to see how building native-like apps using web technologies “undermines the core function of the web” at all. To me, it simply adds another function. Just as Cocoa apps aren’t part of the web, but rather tangential to it, I would say native-like apps that live in the web are also not part of the web, but tangential to it. They sit alongside it, not hurting the web one bit. Visit site »
Nicole continues to flesh out her ideas on how CSS ought to work. Aside from a few syntax gripes, I’d love to see this stuff in CSS — but I don’t think it’ll ever happen. It’s really unfortunate that the working group isn’t interested in hearing feedback like this. In the meantime, there’s always SASS or Less. Visit site »
PPK details the myth that is the idea that “WebKit on mobile is taking over.” His point, which is totally valid, is that while WebKit is indeed becoming the dominant rendering engine on mobile platforms, each of those platforms has distinctly different versions of WebKit, so the idea that if you build for WebKit, all of these devices will render your site the exact same way is a misconception. His point is well taken, if a bit dramatic. It’s true that there are subtle differences between each version, and it’s also true that most people don’t realize this. But, in the real-world, they’re “close enough” that targeting WebKit will generally get you a very similar experience on all these platforms. Visit site »
Another thoughtful piece of the demise of XHTML2. Visit site »
Easily the best overview I’ve seen of XHTML, XHTML2, HTML5, and the related concerns for your typical standards-oriented front-end web developer. Bottom line: the death of XHTML2 and the move to HTML5 does not mean you lose all the things you love about XHTML 1 and 1.1. Relax, folks. It’ll be okay. :) Visit site »
Jeff Veen, who I have mad, mad respect and admiration for, announces his company’s new project: TypeKit. It’s basically a hosted solution for web fonts, wherein Jeff and team negotiate a license with font foundries, and then you (the average web developer) pay Jeff and team a fee in order to use the fonts. It will use standards CSS @font-face embedding, and automatically switch out Opentype for EOT based on a user’s browser. This all sounds great, but the post is a bit short on details, and I definitely have questions: will it scale? How much will it cost? What will the license look like? All concerns people have over a subscription-based music service versus the iTunes model apply, here. What happens when you unsubscribe? Are the plans per-site or per-designer? And so forth. So, bottom line: sounds like there’s a lot of potential, here, but I’ll save my fanboyish excitement for when I have more information. Visit site »
I still have a hard time seeing any good reason to ever validate someone else’s code, but I guess maybe research for a book is one. Still, I don’t understand the point of posting the results here. Jeffrey says himself, “If all the home pages of the top 100 sites were valid, it would not mean that the pages beneath the home page level were valid, nor would it prove that the sites were authored semantically,” and “nothing causal or predictive can be determined from these results.” I agree with him, and that begs the question: then why post it at all? Because I know enough about Zeldman himself, I am guessing the answer is simply, “I thought it was interesting,” but I’m afraid it feels like the point is simply to publicly praise some and berate others. Visit site »
October 12th, 2009–October 13th, 2009
May 4th, 2009–May 5th, 2009 in Seattle, WA
Hits most of the HTML/CSS/Javascript-focused ones I’d seriously consider. Visit site »
A really complete and nice-looking CSS framework that satisfies one common complaint about many CSS framework: lack of fluid-width support (I personally usually go fixed-width, but I know this is an issue for a lot of people). By Stephen Bau](http://www.domain7.com/WhoWeAre/StephenBau.html). Good stuff! Visit site »
I love this post of Dustin’s about how Google uses a shortened version of the DOCTYPE string to save bytes, even though it makes a validator say their pages are invalid. I don't personally get too worried about a few bytes, but that's a Very Big Deal™ to Google, and this is a perfect example of what I mean by "use web standards and best practices when they make sense, and don't when they don't." Here, they've found a better solution for them than the understood "best practice." That's awesome. Visit site »
Eric’s got some great thoughts on how we can use JavaScript to get some of the CSS functionality we’d like to see. Some of it is a little bit pie in the sky and maybe not completely practical (for example, I don’t believe Gecko makes unrecognized CSS properties accessible from JavaScript) but the general concept is great. It’s all about getting shit done in an elegant way, rather than putting all the focus on doing things exactly how the standards would suggest — and you know I like that. Visit site »
A nice interview with Emily Lewis, who I first met a year ago in Dallas and re-connected with in Atlanta a few weeks ago. She’s a passionate and talented web standards advocate with a lot to say. I like people with a lot to say. Check her out on Twitter, too. Visit site »
More great thoughts on markup and CSS coding practices, this time from my homey J.B., who I am (apparently) doing a world tour with this month. Visit site »
Good stuff by Andy Clarke. I would suggest if you can’t live with these browser differences, you’re not really understanding the way modern CSS is supposed to work. Visit site »
A really nice article by Molly Holzschlag clearly articulates the three groups that are independently defining web standards these days, outlining the pros and cons of each. The big question, of course, is, “which group should we follow into the future of the web?” The clear answer is “none,” as they all have deal-breaking cons. I really wish I had time to worry about the future of the web. Sadly, I don’t, so I’m left to just deal with today, and that basically means implementing whatever parts of specs work in the browsers that matter to users, and doing so in the most elegant, backwards-and-future compatible way possible (but always recognizing that given a choice between now and the future, now wins every time). Good read. Nicely done, Molly. Visit site »