Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

18
  • 13
    Yes, recent browsers do animations, gradients, image filters effects, JavaScript, 2D graphics (canvas), 3D graphics with WebGL, Audio generation, Gamepad (!), Video decoding, advanced client-side-storage, Peer-to-peer communication (WebRTC), Geolocation, WebSocket, WebCryptography, MIDI, access to mic/webcam, notifications, etc. Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 10:40
  • 1
    Add doing more stuff (DOM, CSS, Javascript) to also having more real estate (Multiple Monitors, massive increase in resolution: Computer Screens Getting Bigger: 1999 through 2011 ) - 800x600 vs 1920x1080 vs 4k... 8k and beyond... 1080 to 4k is quadruple the resolution... 8k is quadruple again. Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 13:00
  • 7
    @WernerCD Simply having a bigger screen doesn't require a bigger binary. A 64 by 64 pixel, 32 bit icon will require the same amount of space on disk whether it's being displayed on an 800x600 or 2560x1440 monitor. Resizing your window doesn't change the size of the binary. What matters with displays is when you start doing stuff like pixel doubling, then you need bigger resources to continue looking sharp(er). Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 14:07
  • 1
    @8bittree, it can put a higher demand on the software performance. And more performant code can be more complex (e.g. a website using Canvas likely needs more complexity and code than one using SVGs). But yeah, you're mostly correct. Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 14:19
  • 2
    While it is certainly true that current HTML does a lot more than HTML 3.2 did, the specification itself is also a lot more detailed which adds significant amount of content to the spec. Compare the length of HTML 3.2's description of the EM element -- a full eight or nine words -- with the length of the same in the HTML 5 spec -- for me, more than a screenful including surrounding material describing the element, where it is applicable and what its intended use is. Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 9:31