BrowserQuest can be played by thousands of simultaneous players, distributed across different instances of the in-game world. Click on the population counter at any time to know exactly how many total players are currently online.
Players can see and interact with each other by using an in-game chat system. They can also team up and fight enemies together.
BrowserQuest is a game of exploration: the more dangerous the places you go, the better the rewards.
Powered by WebSockets
WebSockets are a new technology enabling bi-directional communication between a browser and a server on the web.
The mobile versions are more experimental than the desktop experience, which has richer features and performance, but it’s an early glimpse of what kind of games will be coming to the mobile Web in the future. Give it a try with your favorite mobile device!
Join the adventure
Want to be part of BrowserQuest? Create your own character and venture into the world. Fight enemies by yourself or with friends to get your hands on new equipment and items. You might even stumble upon a couple of surprises along the way…
The ongoing discussion about the “readiness” of HTML5 is based on a lot of false assumptions. These lead to myths about HTML5 that get uttered once and then continuously repeated – a lot of times without checking their validity at all.
HTML5 doesn’t perform?
The big thing everybody who wants to talk about the problems with HTML5 is performance. The main problem here is that almost every single comparison misses the fact that you are comparing apples and pears (no pun intended).
Comparing an HTML5 application’s performance with a native App is comparing a tailored suit with one bought in a shop. Of course the tailored suit will fit you like a glove and looks amazing but if you ever want to sell it or hand it over to someone else you are out of luck. It will not be the same for the next person.
That is what native Apps are – they are built and optimized for one single environment and purpose and are fixed in their state – more on that later.
HTML5, on the other hand by its very definition is a web technology that should run independent of environment, display or technology. It has to be as flexible as possible in order to be a success on the web. In its very definition the web is for everybody, not just for a small group of lucky people who can afford a very expensive piece of hardware and are happy to get locked into a fixed environment governed by a single company.
Native applications need to be written for every single device and every new platform from scratch whereas an HTML5 App allows you to support mobiles, tablets and desktops with the same product. Instead of having fixed dimensions and functionality an HTML5 App can test what is supported and improve the experience for people on faster and newer devices whilst not locking out others that can not buy yet another phone.
Native Apps on the other hand do in a lot of cases need an upgrade and force the end user to buy new hardware or they’ll not get the product at all. From a flexibility point of view, HTML5 Apps perform admirably whilst native applications make you dependent on your hardware and leave you stranded when there is an upgrade you can’t afford or don’t want to make. A great example of this is the current switch from Apple to their own maps on iOS. Many end users are unhappy and would prefer to keep using Google Maps but can not.
The answer is hardware access. HTML5 applications are treated by mobile hardware developed for iOS and Android as second class citizens and don’t get access to the parts that allow for peak performance. A web view in iOS is hindered by the operating system to perform as fast as a native App although it uses the same principles. On Android both Chrome and Firefox show how fast browsers can perform whereas the stock browser crawls along in comparison.
The stock browser on Android reminds us of the Internet Explorer of the 90s which threatened to be set in stone for a long time and hinder the world wide web from evolving – the very reason Mozilla and Firefox came into existence.
In essence HTML5 is a Formula 1 car that has to drive on a dirt road whilst dragging a lot of extra payload given to it by the operating system without a chance to work around that – for now.
HTML5 can not be monetized?
HTML5 is a technology stack based on open web technologies. Saying that HTML5 has no monetization model is like saying the web can not be monetized (which is especially ironic when this is written on news sites that show ads).
Whilst on the first glance a closed App-market is a simple way to sell your products there is a lot of hype about their success and in reality not many developers manage to make a living with a single app on closed App markets. As discovery and find-ability is getting increasingly harder in App markets a lot of developers don’t build one App but hundreds of the same App (talking dog, talking cat, talking donkey…) as it is all about being found quickly and being on the first page of search results in the market.
This is where closed App markets with native Apps are a real disadvantage for developers: Apps don’t have an address on the web (URL) and can not be found outside the market. You need to manually submit each of the Apps in each of the markets, abide to their review and submission process and can not update your App easily without suffering outages in your offering.
An HTML5 App is on the web and has a URL, it can also get packaged up with products like Adobe PhoneGap to become a native application for iOS or Android. The other way around is not possible.
In the long term that begs the question what is the better strategy for developers: betting on one closed environment that can pull your product any time it wants or distributing over a world-wide, open distribution network and cover the closed shops as well?
Many apps in the Android and iOS store are actually HTML5 and got converted using PhoneGap. The biggest story about this was the Financial Times releasing their app as HTML5 and making a better profit than with the native one. And more recently the New York Times announced it was following suit with its Web app.
HTML5 can not be offline?
As HTML5 is a web technology stack the knee-jerk reaction is thinking that you would have to be online all the time to use them. This is plain wrong. There are many ways to store content offline in a HTML5 application. The simplest way is the Web Storage API which is supported across all modern browsers (excluding Opera mini which is a special case as it sends content via a cloud service and has its own storage tools). You can also store the application itself offline using AppCache which is supported by all but Internet Explorer. If you have more complex data to store than Web Storage provides you can use either IndexedDB (for Chrome and Firefox) or WebSQL (for iOS and Safari). To work around the issues there are libraries like Lawnchair available to make it easy for developers to use.
HTML5 has no development environment?
One concern often mentioned is that HTML5 lacks in tooling for developers. Strangely enough you never hear that argument from developers but from people who want to buy software to make their developers more effective instead of letting them decide what makes them effective.
HTML5 development at its core is web development and there is a quite amazingly practical development environment for that available. Again, the main issue is a misunderstanding of the web. You do not build a product that looks and performs the same everywhere – this would rob the web of its core strengths. You build a product that works for everybody and excels on a target platform. Therefore your development environment is a set of tools, not a single one doing everything for you. Depending on what you build you choose to use many of them or just one.
The very success of the web as a media is based on the fact that you do not need to be a developer to put content out – you can use a blogging platform, a CMS or even a simple text editor that comes with your operating system to start your first HTML page. As you progress in your career as a developer you find more and more tools you like and get comfortable and effective with but there is no one tool to rule them all. Some developers prefer IDEs like Visual Studio, or Eclipse. Others want a WYSIWYG style editor like Dreamweaver but the largest part of web developers will have a text editor or other of some sorts. From Sublime Text, Notepad++ up to VIM or emacs on a Linux computer, all of these are tools that can be used and are used by millions of developers daily to build web content.
When it comes to debugging and testing web developers are lucky these days as the piece of software our end users have to see what we build – the browser – is also the debugging and testing environment. Starting with Firefox having Firebug as an add-on to see changes live and change things on the fly, followed by Opera’s Dragonfly and Safari and Chrome’s Devtools, all browsers now also have a lot of functionality that is there especially for developers. Firefox’s new developer tools go even further and instead of simply being a debugging environment are a set of tools in themselves that developers can extend to their needs.
Remote debugging is another option we have now. This means we can as developers change applications running on a phone on our development computers instead of having to write them, send them to the phone, install them, test them, find a mistake and repeat. This speeds up development time significantly.
For the more visual developers Adobe lately released their Edge suite which brings WYSIWYG style development to HTML5, including drag and drop from Photoshop. Adobe’s Edge Inspect and PhoneGap makes it easy to test on several devices at once and send HTML5 Apps as packaged native Apps to iOS and Android.
In terms of deployment and packaging Google just released their Yeoman project which makes it dead easy for web developers to package and deploy their web products as applications with all the necessary steps to make them perform well.
All in all there is no fixed development environment for HTML5 as that would neuter the platform – this is the web, you can pick and choose what suits you most.
Things HTML5 can do that native Apps can not
In essence a lot of the myths of HTML5 are based on the fact that the comparison was between something explicitly built for the platform it was tested on versus something that is also supported on it. Like comparing the performance of speedboat and a hovercraft would result in the same predictable outcome. The more interesting question is what makes HTML5 great for developers and end users, that native applications can or do not do:
Write once, deploy anywhere – HTML5 can run in browsers, on tablets and desktops and you can convert it to native code to support iOS and Android. This is not possible the other way around.
Share over the web – as HTML5 apps have a URL they can be shared over the web and found when you search the web. You don’t need to go to a market place and find it amongst the crowded, limited space but the same tricks how to promote other web content apply. The more people like and link to your app, the easier it will be found.
Built on agreed, multi-vendor standards – HTML5 is a group effort of the companies that make the web what it is now, not a single vendor that can go into a direction you are not happy with
Millions of developers – everybody who built something for the web in the last years is ready to write apps. It is not a small, specialized community any longer
Consumption and development tool are the same thing – all you need to get started is a text editor and a browser
Small, atomic updates – if a native app needs an upgrade, the whole App needs to get downloaded again (new level of Angry Birds? Here are 23MB over your 3G connection). HTML5 apps can download data as needed and store it offline, thus making updates much less painful.
Simple functionality upgrade – native apps need to ask you for access to hardware when you install them and can not change later on which is why every app asks for access to everything upfront (which of course is a privacy/security risk). An HTML5 app can ask for access to hardware and data on demand without needing an update or re-installation.
Adaptation to the environment – an HTML5 app can use responsive design to give the best experience for the environment without having to change the code. You can switch from Desktop to mobile to tablet seamlessly without having to install a different App on each.
Let’s see native Apps do that.
Breaking the hardware lockout and making monetization easier
The main reason why HTML5 is not the obvious choice for developers now is the above mentioned lockout when it comes to hardware. An iOS device does not allow different browser engines and does not allow HTML5 to access the camera, the address book, vibration, the phone or text messaging. In other words, everything that makes a mobile device interesting for developers and very necessary functionality for Apps.
To work around this issue, Mozilla and a few others have created a set of APIs to define access to these in a standardized way called Web APIs. This allows every browser out there to get access to the hardware in a secure way and breaks the lockout.
The first environment to implement these is the Firefox OS with devices being shipped next year. Using a Firefox OS phone you can build applications that have the same access to hardware native applications have. Developers have direct access to the hardware and thus can build much faster and – more importantly – much smaller Apps. For the end user the benefit is that the devices will be much cheaper and Firefox OS can run on very low specification hardware that can for example not be upgraded to the newest Android.
In terms of monetization Mozilla is working on their own marketplace for HTML5 Apps which will not only allow HTML5 Apps to be submitted but also to be discovered on the web with a simple search. To make it easier for end users to buy applications we partner with mobile providers to allow for billing to the mobile contract. This allows end users without a credit card to also buy Apps and join the mobile web revolution.
How far is HTML5?
All in all HTML5 is going leaps and bounds to be a very interesting and reliable platform for app developers. The main barriers we have to remove is the hardware access and with the WebAPI work and systems like PhoneGap to get us access these are much less of a stopper than we anticipated.
The benefits of HTML5 over native apps mentioned above should be reason enough for developers to get involved and start with HTML5 instead of spending their time building a different code base for each platform. If all you want to support is one special platform you don’t need to go that way, but then it is also pointless to blame HTML5 issues for your decision.
HTML5 development is independent of platform and browser. If you don’t embrace that idea you limit its potential. Historically closed platforms came and went and the web is still going strong and allows you to reach millions of users world-wide and allows you to start developing without asking anyone for permission or having to install a complex development environment. This was and is the main reason why people start working with the web. And nobody is locked out, so have a go.
TL;DR: we have to stop advocating localStorage as a great opportunity for storing data as it performs badly. Sadly enough the alternatives are not nearly as supported or simple to implement.
When it comes to web development you will always encounter things that sound too good to be true. Sometimes they are good, and all that stops us from using them is our notion of being conspicuous about *everything* as developers. In a lot of cases, however, they really are not as good as they seem but we only find out after using them for a while that we are actually “doing it wrong”.
One such case is local storage. There is a storage specification (falsely attributed to HTML5 in a lot of examples) with an incredibly simple API that was heralded as the cookie killer when it came out. All you have to do to store content on the user’s machine is to access the navigator.localStorage (or sessionStorage if you don’t need the data to be stored longer than the current browser session):
LocalStorage also has a lot of drawbacks that aren’t quite documented and certainly not covered as much in “HTML5 tutorials”. Especially performance oriented developers are very much against its use.
When we covered localStorage a few weeks ago using it to store images and files in localStorage it kicked off a massive thread of comments and an even longer internal mailing list thread about the evils of localStorage. The main issues are:
localStorage is synchronous in nature, meaning when it loads it can block the main document from rendering
localStorage does file I/O meaning it writes to your hard drive, which can take long depending on what your system does (indexing, virus scanning…)
On a developer machine these issues can look deceptively minor as the operating system cached these requests – for an end user on the web they could mean a few seconds of waiting during which the web site stalls
In order to appear snappy, web browsers load the data into memory on the first request – which could mean a lot of memory use if lots of tabs do it
localStorage is persistent. If you don’t use a service or never visit a web site again, the data is still loaded when you start the browser
This is covered in detail in a follow-up blog post by Taras Glek of the Mozilla performance team and also by Andrea Giammarchi of Nokia.
In essence this means that a lot of articles saying you can use localStorage for better performance are just wrong.
Of course, browsers always offered ways to store local data, some you probably never heard of as shown by evercookie (I think my fave when it comes to the “evil genius with no real-world use” factor is the force-cached PNG image to be read out in canvas). In the internal discussions there was a massive thrust towards advocating IndexedDB for your solutions instead of localStorage. We then published an article how to store images and files in IndexedDB and found a few issues – most actually related to ease-of-use and user interaction:
IndexedDB is a full-fledged DB that requires all the steps a SQL DB needs to read and write data – there is no simple key/value layer like localStorage available
IndexedDB asks the user for permission to store data which can spook them
The browser support is not at all the same as localStorage, right now IndexedDB is supported in IE10, Firefox and Chrome and there are differences in their implementations
As always when there are differences in implementation someone will come up with an abstraction layer to work around that. Parashuram Narasimhan does a great job with that – even providing a jQuery plugin. It feels wrong though that we as implementers have to use these. It is the HTML5 video debate of WebM vs. H264 all over again.
There is no doubt that the real database solutions and their asynchronous nature are the better option in terms of performance. They are also more matured and don’t have the “shortcut hack” feeling of localStorage. On the other hand they are hard to use in comparison, we already have a lot of solutions out there using localStorage and asking the user to give us access to storing local files is unacceptable for some implementations in terms of UX.
The answer is that there is no simple solution for storing data on the end users’ machines and we should stop advocating localStorage as a performance boost. What we have to find is a solution that makes everybody happy and doesn’t break the current implementations. This might prove hard to work around. Here are some ideas:
Build a polyfill library that overrides the localStorage API and stores the content in IndexedDB/WebSQL instead? This is dirty and doesn’t work around the issue of the user being asked for permission
Implement localStorage in an asynchronous fashion in browsers – actively disregarding the spec? (this could set a dangerous precedent though)
Change the localStorage spec to store asynchronously instead of synchronously? We could also extend it to have a proper getStorageSpace interface and allow for native JSON support
Define a new standard that allows browser vendors to map the new API to the existing supported API that matches the best for the use case?
We need to fix this as it doesn’t make sense to store things locally and sacrifice performance at the same time. This is a great example of how new web standards give us much more power but also make us face issues we didn’t have to deal with before. With more access to the OS, we also have to tread more carefully.
Today, three months after the release of Firefox 4, we release Firefox 5, thanks to our new development cycle. Developers will be able to create richer animations using CSS3 Animations. This release comes with various improvements, performance optimization and bug fixes.
CSS Animations (check out the documentation) are a new way to create animations using CSS. Like CSS Transitions, they are efficient and run smoothly (see David Baron’s article), and the developers have a better controls over the intermediate steps (keyframes), and can now create much more complex animations.
You can now pass an image as a parameter to createImageDatato copy its dimensions.
The <canvas> 2D drawing context now supports specifying an ImageData object as the input to the createImageData() method; this creates a new ImageData object initialized with the same dimensions as the specified object, but still with all pixels preset to transparent black.
Specifying non-finite values when adding color stops through a call to the CanvasGradient method addColorStop() now correctly throws INDEX_SIZE_ERR instead of SYNTAX_ERR.
The HTMLCanvasElement method toDataURL() now correctly lower-cases the specified MIME type before matching.
getImageData() now correctly accepts rectangles that extend beyond the bounds of the canvas; pixels outside the canvas are returned as transparent black.
drawImage() and createImageData() now handle negative arguments in accordance with the specification, by flipping the rectangle around the appropriate axis.
Specifying non-finite values when calling createImageData() now properly throws a NOT_SUPPORTED_ERR exception.
createImageData() and getImageData() now correctly return at least one pixel’s worth of image data if a rectangle smaller than one pixel is specified.
Specifying a negative radius when calling createRadialGradient() now correctly throws INDEX_SIZE_ERR.
Specifying a null or undefined image when calling createPattern() or drawImage() now correctly throws a TYPE_MISMATCH_ERR exception.
Specifying invalid values for globalAlpha no longer throws a SYNTAX_ERR exception; these are now correctly silently ignored.
Specifying invalid values when calling translate(), transform(), rect(), clearRect(), fillRect(), strokeRect(), lineTo(), moveTo(), quadraticCurveTo(), or arc() no longer throws an exception; these calls are now correctly silently ignored.
Setting the value of shadowOffsetX, shadowOffsetY, or shadowBlur to an invalid value is now silently ignored.
Setting the value of rotate or scale to an invalid value is now silently ignored.
Support for CSS animations has been added, using the -moz- prefix for now.
The selection object’s modify() method has been changed so that the “word” selection granularity no longer includes trailing spaces; this makes it more consistent across platforms and matches the behavior of WebKit’s implementation.
The window.setTimeout() method now clamps to send no more than one timeout per second in inactive tabs. In addition, it now clamps nested timeouts to the smallest value allowed by the HTML5 specification: 4 ms (instead of the 10 ms it used to clamp to).
Similarly, the window.setInterval() method now clamps to no more than one interval per second in inactive tabs.
XMLHttpRequest now supports the loadend event for progress listeners. This is sent after any transfer is finished (that is, after the abort, error, or load event). You can use this to handle any tasks that need to be performed regardless of success or failure of a transfer.
The following SVG-related DOM interfaces representing lists of objects are now indexable and can be accessed like arrays; in addition, they have a length property indicating the number of items in the lists: SVGLengthList , SVGNumberList , SVGPathSegList , and SVGPointList.
Firefox no longer sends the “Keep-Alive” HTTP header; we weren’t formatting it correctly, and it was redundant since we were also sending the Connection: or Proxy-Connection: header with the value “keep-alive” anyway.
The HTTP transaction model has been updated to be more intelligent about reusing connections in the persistent connection pool; instead of treating the pool as a FIFO queue, Necko now attempts to sort the pool with connections with the largest congestion window (CWND) first. This can reduce the round-trip time (RTT) of HTTP transactions by avoiding the need to grow connections’ windows in many cases.
Firefox now handles the Content-Disposition HTTP response header more effectively if both the filename and filename* parameters are provided; it looks through all provided names, using the filename* parameter if one is available, even if a filename parameter is included first. Previously, the first matching parameter would be used, thereby preventing a more appropriate name from being used. See bug 588781 .
Mozilla’s Boot to Gecko (B2G) is about building a complete, standalone operating system for the open web. It aims at making web technologies the number one choice for applications on desktop and mobile, and we believe it can displace proprietary, single-vendor stacks for application development. And we have made some exciting progress that we want to share with you!
1. Google will be releasing VP8 under an open source and royalty-free basis. VP8 is a high-quality video codec that Google acquired when they purchased the company On2. The VP8 codec represents a vast improvement in quality-per-bit over Theora and is comparable in quality to H.264.
2. The VP8 codec will be combined with the Vorbis audio codec and a subset of the Matroska container format to build a new standard for Open Video on the web called WebM. You can find out more about the project at its new site: http://www.webmproject.org/.
3. We will include support for WebM in Firefox. You can get super-early WebM builds of Firefox 4 pre-alpha today. WebM will also be included in Google Chrome and Opera.
4. Every video on YouTube will be transcoded into WebM. They have about 1.2 million videos available today and will be working through their back catalog over time. But they have committed to supporting everything.
5. This is something that is supported by many partners, not just Google and others. Content providers like Brightcove have signed up to support WebM as part of a full HTML5 video solution. Hardware companies, encoding providers and other parts of the video stack are all part of the list of companies backing WebM. Even Adobe will be supporting WebM in Flash. Firefox, with its market share and principled leadership and YouTube, with its video reach are the most important partners in this solution, but we are only a small part of the larger ecosystem of video.
We’re extremely excited to see Google joining us to support Open Video. They are making technology available on terms consistent with the Open Web and the W3C Royalty-Free licensing terms. And – most importantly – they are committing to support a full open video stack on the world’s largest video site. This changes the landscape for video and moves the baseline for what other sites have to do to maintain parity and keep up with upcoming advances in video technology, not to mention compatibility with the set of browsers that are growing their userbase and advancing technology on the web.
At Mozilla, we’ve wanted video on the web to move as fast as the rest of the web. That has required a baseline of open technology to build on. Theora was a good start, but VP8 is better. Expect us to start pushing on video innovation with vigor. We’ll innovate like the web has, moving from the edges in, with dozens of small revolutions that add up to something larger than the sum of those parts. VP8 is one of those pieces, HTML5 is another. If you watch this weblog, you can start to see those other pieces starting to emerge as well. The web is creeping into more and more technologies, with Firefox leading the way. We intend to keep leading the web beyond HTML5 to the next place it needs to be.
Today is a day of great change. Tomorrow will be another.
Opus is the first state of the art, free audio codec to be standardized. We think this will help us achieve wider adoption than prior royalty-free codecs like Speex and Vorbis. This spells the beginning of the end for proprietary formats, and we are now working on doing the same thing for video.
There was both skepticism and outright opposition to this work when it was first proposed in the IETF over 3 years ago. However, the results have shown that we can create a better codec through collaboration, rather than competition between patented technologies. Open standards benefit both open source organizations and proprietary companies, and we have been successful working together to create one. Opus is the result of a collaboration between many organizations, including the IETF, Mozilla, Microsoft (through Skype), Xiph.Org, Octasic, Broadcom, and Google.
A highly flexible codec
Unlike previous audio codecs, which have typically focused on a narrow set of applications (either voice or music, in a narrow range of bitrates, for either real-time or storage applications), Opus is highly flexible. It can adaptively switch among:
Bitrates from 6 kb/s to 512 kb/s
Voice and music
Mono and stereo
Narrowband (8 kHz) to Fullband (48 kHz)
Frame sizes from 2.5 ms to 60 ms
Most importantly, it can adapt seamlessly within these operating points. Doing all of this with proprietary codecs would require at least six different codecs. Opus replaces all of them, with better quality.
The specification is available in RFC 6716, which includes the reference implementation. Up-to-date software releases are also available.
Some audio standards define a normative encoder, which cannot be improved after it is standardized. Others allow for flexibility in the encoder, but release an intentionally hobbled reference implementation to force you to license their proprietary encoders. For Opus, we chose to allow flexibility for future encoders, but we also made the best one we knew how and released that as the reference implementation, so everyone could use it. We will continue to improve it, and keep releasing those improvements as open source.
Opus is primarily designed for use in interactive applications on the Internet, including voice over IP (VoIP), teleconferencing, in-game chatting, and even live, distributed music performances. The IETF recently decided with “strong consensus” to adopt Opus as a mandatory-to-implement (MTI) codec for WebRTC, an upcoming standard for real-time communication on the web. Despite the focus on low latency, Opus also excels at streaming and storage applications, beating existing high-delay codecs like Vorbis and HE-AAC. It’s great for internet radio, adaptive streaming, game sound effects, and much more.
This is a guest post from Henri Sivonen, who has been working on Firefox’s new HTML5 parser. The HTML parser is one of the most complicated and sensitive pieces of a browser. It controls how your HTML source is turned into web pages and as such changes to it are rare and need to be well-tested. While most of Gecko has been rebuilt since its initial inception in the late 90s, the parser was one of the stand-outs as being “original.” This replaces that code with a new parser that’s faster, compliant with the new HTML5 standard and enables a lot of new functionality as well.
A project to replace Gecko’s old HTML parser, dating from 1998, has been ongoing for some time now. The parser was just turned on by default on the trunk, so you can now try it out by simply downloading a nightly build without having to flip any configuration switch.
There are four main things that improve with the new HTML5 parser:
You can now use SVG and MathML inline in HTML5 pages, without XML namespaces.
Parsing is now done off Firefox’s main UI thread, improving overall browser responsiveness.
It’s improved the speed of innerHTML calls by about 20%.
HTML5 is the first specification that tells implementors, in detail, how parse HTML. Before HTML5, HTML specifications didn’t say how to turn a stream of bytes into a DOM tree. In theory, HTML before HTML5 was supposed to be defined in terms of SGML. This implied a certain relationship between the source of valid HTML documents and the DOM. However, parsing wasn’t well-defined for invalid documents (and Web content most often isn’t valid HTML4) and there are SGML constructs that were in theory part of HTML but that in reality popular browsers didn’t implement.
The lack of a proper specification led to browser developers filling in the blanks on their own and reverse engineering the browser with the largest market share (first Mosaic, then Netscape, then IE) when in doubt about how to get compatible behavior. This led to a lot of unwritten common rules but also to different behavior across browsers.
The HTML5 parsing algorithm standardizes well-defined behavior that browsers and other applications that consume HTML can converge on. By design, the HTML5 parsing algorithm is suitable for processing existing HTML content, so applications don’t need to continue maintaining their legacy parsers for legacy content. Concretely, in the trunk nightlies, the HTML5 parser is used for all text/html content.
How Is It Different?
The HTML5 parsing algorithm has two major parts: tokenization and tree building. Tokenization is the process of splitting the source stream into tags, text, comments and attributes inside tags. The tree building phase takes the tags and the interleaving text and comments and builds the DOM tree. The tokenization part of the HTML5 parsing algorithm is closer to what Internet Explorer does than what Gecko used to do. Internet Explorer has had the majority market share for a while, so sites have generally been tested not to break when subjected to IE’s tokenizer. The tree building part is close to what WebKit does already. Of the major browser engines WebKit had the most reasonable tree building solution prior to HTML5.
Furthermore, the new HTML5 parser parses network streams off the main thread. Traditionally, browsers have performed most tasks on the main thread. Radical changes like off-the-main-thread parsing are made possible by the more maintainable code base of the HTML5 parser compared to Gecko’s old HTML parser.
What’s In It for Web Developers?
The changes mentioned above are mainly of interest to browser developers. A key feature of the HTML5 parser is that you don’t notice that anything has changed.
However, there is one big new Web developer-facing feature, too: inline MathML and SVG. HTML5 parsing liberates MathML and SVG from XML and makes them available in the main file format of the Web.
This means that you can include typographically sophisticated math in your HTML document without having to recast the entire document as XHTML or, more importantly, without having to retrofit the software that powers your site to output well-formed XHTML. For example, you can now include the solution for quadratic equations inline in HTML:
Likewise, you can include scalable inline art as SVG without having to recast your HTML as XHTML. As screen sized and pixel densities become more varied, making graphics look crisp at all zoom levels becomes more important. Although it has previously been possible to use SVG graphics in HTML documents by reference (using the object element), putting SVG inline is more convenient in some cases. For example, an icon such as a warning sign can now be included inline instead of including it from an external file.
Make yourself a page that starts with <!DOCTYPE html> and put these two pieces of code in it and it should work with a new nightly.
In general, if you have a piece of MathML or SVG as XML, you can just copy and paste the XML markup inline into HTML (omitting the XML declaration and the doctype if any). There are two caveats: The markup must not use namespace prefixes for elements (i.e. no svg:svg or math:math) and the namespace prefix for the XLink namespace has to be xlink.
In the MathML and SVG snippits above you’ll see that the inline MathML and SVG pieces above are more HTML-like and less crufty than merely XML pasted inline. There are no namespace declarations and unnecessary quotes around attribute values have been omitted. The quote omission works, because the tags are tokenized by the HTML5 tokenizer—not by an XML tokenizer. The namespace declaration omission works, because the HTML5 tree builder doesn’t use attributes looking like namespace declarations to assign MathMLness or SVGness to elements. Instead, <svg> establishes a scope of elements that get assigned to the SVG namespace in the DOM and <math> establishes a scope of elements that get assigned to the MathML namespace in the DOM. You’ll also notice that the MathML example uses named character references that previously haven’t been supported in HTML.
Here’s a quick summary of inline MathML and SVG parsing for Web authors:
<svg>…</svg> is assigned to the SVG namespace in the DOM.
<math>…</math> is assigned to the MathML namespace in the DOM.
foreignObject and annotation-xml (an various less important elements) establish a nested HTML scope, so you can nest SVG, MathML and HTML as you’d expect to be able to nest them.
The parser case-corrects markup so <SVG VIEWBOX='0 0 10 10'> works in HTML source.
The DOM methods and CSS selectors behave case-sensitively, so you need to write your DOM calls and CSS selectors using the canonical case, which is camelCase for various parts of SVG such as viewBox.
The syntax <foo/> opens and immediately closes the foo element if it is a MathML or SVG element (i.e. not an HTML element).
Attributes are tokenized the same way they are tokenized in HTML, so you can omit quotes in the same situations where you can omit quotes in HTML (i.e. when the attribute value is not the empty string and does not contain whitespace, ", ', `, <, =, or >).
Warning: the two above features do not combine well due to the reuse of legacy-compatible HTML tokenization. If you omit quotes on the last attribute value, you must have a space before the closing slash. <circle fill=green /> is OK but <circle fill=red/> is not.
Attributes starting with xmlns have absolutely no effect on what namespace elements or attributes end up in, so you don’t need to use attributes starting with xmlns.
Attributes in the XLink namespace must use the prefix xlink (e.g. xlink:href).
Element names must not have prefixes or colons in them.
The content of SVG script elements is tokenized like they are tokenized in XML—not like the content of HTML script elements is tokenized.
When an SVG or MathML element is open <![CDATA[…]]> sections work the way they do in XML. You can use this to hide text content from older browsers that don’t support SVG or MathML in text/html.
The MathML named characters are available for use in named character references everywhere in the document (also in HTML content).
To deal with legacy pages where authors have pasted partial SVG fragments into HTML (who knows why) or used a <math> tag for non-MathML purposes, attempts to nest various common HTML elements as children of SVG elements (without foreignObject) will immediately break out of SVG or MathML context. This may make some typos have surprising effects.