Developers › A Journal from Behind the Trenches › Apple's new "HTML5 Showcase" doesn't show much HTML5, and is browser-specific
Developers › A Journal from Behind the Trenches › Apple's new "HTML5 Showcase" doesn't show much HTML5, and is browser-specific
prd3Saturday, June 5, 2010 12:06:59 PM
Originally posted by dioskouroi:
And yet they do browser sniffing, browser blocking, promote patent-encumbered codecs, threaten the W3C with patent lawsuits, etc.
Originally posted by dioskouroi:
Sure. And it's still dishonest.
Originally posted by dioskouroi:
This red herring is getting old. Opera already has multiple HTML5 demos, but that's irrelevant. This is about how Apple is dishonest about it.
prd3Saturday, June 5, 2010 12:08:29 PM
Originally posted by newRyszard:
No. Again you are trying to deceive others. The context here is web standards. That's what this is about. H264 is patent-encumbered crap, and can never be an open web standard.
IlgazSaturday, June 5, 2010 2:25:28 PM
What does Adobe say? HTML5 isn't mature enough to replace Flash yet. What Apple did is, perfectly validate their claims.
prd3Saturday, June 5, 2010 3:00:39 PM
Apple, without knowing it, boosted Flash as a cross browser content platform. Apparently HTML5 doesn't work across browsers (says Apple, indirectly)!
Never mind the fact that the page doesn't really use HTML5 to any great extent...
Dong CilSaturday, June 5, 2010 6:25:42 PM
The Url of movie is "http://movies.apple.com/media/us/html5/showcase/2010/demos/apple-html5-demo-tron_legacy-us-20100601_r848-2cie.mov".
I knew H.264 is the standard (as apple's claim), but is *.mov file format HTML5 standard? Most of H.264 HTML5 movie file format is *.mp4, like Youtube H.264 mode.
Also, when to use Safari Windows version without Quicktime, it requires Quicktime.
In the first page of Apple's HTML5 sample page, it says "Standards aren't add-ons th the web" But Apple uses add-ons in their (So-called) HTML5 sample pages. Only in apple's platform(OSX, iphone, ipad), it doesn't need to install add-ons because it was pre-installed, also it seems to be browser basic elements.
I think this apple's HTML5 sample is just cheat or hoax.
Cutting SpoonSaturday, June 5, 2010 8:04:49 PM
Robin ZalekSaturday, June 5, 2010 9:32:25 PM
Can one person here — anyone defending Apple, or indeed anyone reading this — give one good reason for the browser sniffing?
Or failing that a reason for not paring -webkit-border-radius with an identical border-radius; a reason that is not 'incompetence'?
walterSunday, June 6, 2010 11:40:12 AM
LeoSunday, June 6, 2010 12:33:52 PM
This demo uses browser sniffing for what it was intented to: allow to use browser's enhanced features while degrading beautifully in other browsers. Not by blocking other browsers...
Seems like Apple didn't learn the Microsoft/Netscape lesson.
And yes, it works in Opera, but also IE,...
MLxSunday, June 6, 2010 3:27:35 PM
@those who think h264 will become part of HTLML5: not as long as it's patent encumbered. Read up on the GIF fiasco, as well as the attempted royalty collection on JPEG.
QuHnoSunday, June 6, 2010 6:38:43 PM
Originally posted by leo42:
Especially that demo works fine on the Apple page itself if you use a little UserJS to fake the UA string for their snifferBTW: I think it is possible to write a similar demo with pure HTML4.01 STRICT and some excessive use of CSS2 without any JS
Quadunit404Sunday, June 6, 2010 8:38:15 PM
How did I do this? Google Chrome 6.0.422.0 dev with the Chrome UA Spoofer set to Windows Safari 4 and the dev tools included with Chrome. We've already confirmed that just the <audio> and
QuHnoSunday, June 6, 2010 8:53:03 PM
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=595572&t=1275857517&page=1#comment5725702
Quadunit404Sunday, June 6, 2010 9:02:10 PM
Brad BellMonday, June 7, 2010 11:33:15 AM
Saying it doesn't work in other browsers misses the point. Saying it's not a good demo of HTML5 or web standards misses the point. Safari is a highly standards-compliant browser, as is Firefox and Opera. There's nothing to prove in this regard, and no reason to prove it. Rather, Apple appear to be trying to prove we don't need Flash. And that is a big, very important thing (for them) to try to prove, or at least reassure people about.
It is likely also about the Eolas patent on plugins which we all lost. 'Plugins' are now so patent-encumbered that one must wonder if they have much future. Flash is pretty much nothing BUT a plugin. Apple is pushing HTML5 because HTML5 is partly about ending our reliance on plugins for essential media like audio and video.
Perhaps they should have been less subtle and changed the headline to "We - and by 'we' we mean everyone except Adobe and Eolas - don't need no stinkin' plugins."
prd3Monday, June 7, 2010 12:11:58 PM
Originally posted by BradBell:
You got that right. It's about Apple's private walled garden. They are trying to turn open standards into "Apple's back yard". Embrace and extend, boys!
And failed miserably because it basically MADE THE CASE FOR FLASH STRONGER!
Nope. YOU are missing the point.
Apparently we DO need Flash because, according to Apple, HTML5 sucks and doesn't have a lot of browser support. So according to Apple, if you want cross platform sites, use Flash!
Charles SchlossMonday, June 7, 2010 1:51:10 PM
Originally posted by prd3:
I would still prefer HTML 4 + over flash as flash can use a lot of cpu power and for phone users that means a lot shorter battery life
Cutting SpoonMonday, June 7, 2010 4:57:29 PM
Chas, A few phones are getting accelerated Flash, and it is more responsive/uses less battery compared to HTML/JS.
Charles SchlossMonday, June 7, 2010 8:33:33 PM
Originally posted by hellspork:
What makes it accelerated?
Flashs seems to be only stable on Windows, Mac it is crashy (Apple has my 200 to 300 some crash reports from flash crashing any browser) I have also herd that flash is crashy on Linux (not sure tho)
Also flash has become an easy target for hackers as very few people know how to even update flash and the updater is really bad
Robin ZalekMonday, June 7, 2010 9:30:52 PM
Originally posted by Robin Zalek:
No? How odd.Quadunit404Monday, June 7, 2010 10:39:32 PM
everts garayTuesday, June 8, 2010 11:22:52 AM
Cutting SpoonTuesday, June 8, 2010 5:04:22 PM
Quadunit: Why would anything HTML need to be compiled from source? And if you say 3D graphics I will break this keyboard over my own head.
Quadunit404Tuesday, June 8, 2010 11:50:43 PM
Also, Apple released Safari 5 today, even though they only updated Safari 4 about five times: http://www.apple.com/safari/
And once again, they make it seem as if their browser is magical and did everything first. Do note that on the new features page it STILL says it doesn't support HTML5 <audio> and
Cutting SpoonWednesday, June 9, 2010 5:36:52 PM
I looked at the edited pages for Safari 5. Honestly, a few of the things they've done look fascinating (graph of time used by different parts of the browser engine, or supporting some hardware acceleration, for example). Only small problem is that Safari has some ridiculous ideas about how to do things, the Reader cuts out important information, their new supported standards are incomplete and/or non-spec, well the list goes on. Stealing other people's features and calling them "firsts".
But hey, they did represent Opera 10.53 in their comparison of benchmarks (i-bench and sunspider, biased much?) It looks like 10.60 will erase/reverse the narrow gap, so they'll probably pull the comparison when 10.60 goes final.
Brad BellThursday, June 10, 2010 1:24:51 AM
Originally posted by hellspork:
I see what you mean, Cutting Spoon. I didn't notice that because I happened to be using the right combination of browser/plugin. I tried Safari spoofing iPhone for the movie (works), but Firefox spoofing iPhone doesn't. Yet I can (with effort) download the movie and drag and drop it into Firefox or Opera without problem. This demo is understandably very frustrating, annoying, inexplicable, WTF.
I really commented originally because I thought someone might know something about HTML5 and the plugin patent problem. There's been lots of talk about potential problems with video codec patents, but absolutely nothing about the plugin patent, which covers more stuff and is already an issue. Everyone seems to have quietly, maybe, temporarily settled the plugin suit, while acknowledging the door is still open - yet there is so little interest that one wonders if non-disclosure is part of the deal. But after a week of looking - perhaps getting rid of plugins for video is just a happy coincidence. (I won't even ask what's wrong with Java.)
For the record, I was a fan of Flash before there were web standards. With the arrival of web standards the web became more informationally dynamic instead of visually dynamic. The only Flash I really appreciate now is video publishing services, which solve problems caused by a lack of standards for web video. (Try downloading Apple's demo movie too. It's a PITA. I hope that's not the future, either.)
Sid MThursday, June 10, 2010 3:49:24 AM
Cutting SpoonThursday, June 10, 2010 6:12:13 PM
The matter of supposed plugin patents is messy and low-profile. I do not grant it much credence. The problem with full java is that it's large and messy, and modern java-SCRIPT + HTML5 + CSS3 can do so much without needing to load the java plugin.
Quadunit404Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:28:04 PM
Originally posted by Cutting Spoon:
Say hello to WebGL. It's basically an open, extensible API that allows for rich 3D graphics to be displayed and run in a browser without the need for a plugin (a la OpenGL only slightly different).
Unfortunately, only Google Chrome/Chromium/<insert another Chromium derivative here> and Safari support it so far.Update: Never mind, I didn't read the WebGL Public Wiki - Opera and Firefox have their own WebGL implementation as well. However, out of those two, only Firefox has publicly available WebGL-enabled builds.
Cutting SpoonThursday, June 10, 2010 10:30:52 PM
PS: http://www.opera.com/business/solutions/devices/tablets/
Quadunit404Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:17:18 PM
/brb having fun with Compiz
Rianav AntaresFriday, June 11, 2010 2:55:06 AM
Cheers.
G. SpyderSaturday, June 12, 2010 12:12:01 AM
i've been using opera since the late nineties (when opera is still laced with unobtrusive ads). i really commend this great software. the way opera value efficiency and speed is really praiseworthy \o/ more so, opera's integration with the major social networking sites is yet another cut above the rest.
Thank you for the speed!
nkhullarSunday, June 13, 2010 6:39:23 PM
tux kaidoSunday, June 13, 2010 11:51:17 PM
Quadunit404Monday, June 14, 2010 2:50:23 AM
tux kaidoMonday, June 14, 2010 3:47:22 AM
Mustafa OĞUZMonday, June 14, 2010 3:45:33 PM
nkhullarThursday, June 24, 2010 6:56:18 AM
Now, I feel all browsers are at par in terms of speed. And they have left 'Netscape Specific code' and are more or less on same platform.
Point is which browser supports:
- Synchronizing - not safari
- Save password as default option
- Do not crash
Now if a person has customized one browser and if they want to switch to other browser, they can carry all optimizations to other browser.
Many browsers lack interoperability
Erik ShikerinWednesday, July 7, 2010 1:24:18 PM
Disgusting, lying peeps! Opera was the first browser to pass Acid3!
Erik ShikerinWednesday, July 7, 2010 1:27:59 PM
We are 4 times faster than safari
I guess they didn't dare compare themselves to DA BIG FISH
(Safari has 1.5 times slower JS than Chrome)
"Safari is the first web browser to automatically recognize websites that use custom fonts, downloading them as they’re needed."
Is this true?