Apple's HTML5 and Standards Gallery Not Standard 527
snitch writes "Apple has created an HTML5 Showcase that presents its vision for the next generation of the WWW. The fact that this page is only accessible using the Safari browser, while Apple advocates about web standards, has caused many to criticize the company's lack of broader platform support. The showcase demonstrates several HTML5 capabilities and features that have to do with video, typography, transitions, audio, etc. Further, on the front page the company states that 'Standards aren't add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today.' The latter statement falls short by the fact that the featured examples only work with the Safari browser, and in the case of the CSS 3D transforms demonstration, require Mac OS X Snow Leopard (Safari PC or plain Leopard won't do)."
Chrome (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it didn't. I use chrome and I got a 'download safari' dialog box when I tried to view any of the showcases.
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Interesting)
chromium-browser --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_5_8; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.22.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7"
You have to change the user agent string, for any of it to work. There is no GUI method for doing so with Chromium. Modify as needed if you're on a Microsoft operating system.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Every new Apple mobile device and every new Mac -- along with the latest version of Apple's Safari web browser -- supports web standards including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. These web standards are open, reliable, highly secure, and efficient. They allow web designers and developers to create advanced graphics, typography, animations, and transitions. Standards aren't add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today.
The way they say it, makes it seem that you know any HTML5 enabled browser should run HTML5 enabled content.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it did. Many of them also work in Opera. You're just - no offense - too stupid to change your browser's User Agent string so that it identifies itself as Safari, which is the only thing these demos check for.
You are - no offense - an arrogant prick who has missed the point. They claim to advocate standards across the intarwebs for all, putting up a page to view a new whiz-bang standard, but are forcing you to either download their browser, or take (what are to normal users) extraordinary means, to view the content.
Ability to change the User Agent has nothing at all to do with anything in this case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Informative)
From http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/gallery.php [apple.com]
By animating the -webkit-transform CSS property in your code, you can enable hardware-accelerated animations and deliver a top-notch experience in web pages on iPad and iPhone.
* Photos are positioned with -webkit-transform.
* The spotlight effect is drawn with -webkit-gradient.
Those aren't standards. Those are propietary CSS extensions.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Informative)
css3-transform is not proprietary [w3.org]. Nor is css3-images [w3.org], which describes gradient properties. The reason that these properties are implemented using the -webkit- prefix is because these standards have not reached candidate recommendation status and are still subject to change. A vendor prefix doesn’t mean “proprietary”—it means “experimental”. Once the standard reaches final recommendation status, which can only occur once two independent implementations have been created, then the vendor prefixes will be dropped.
For what it’s worth, there are a good number of people within the development community that are not happy [vcarrer.com] with vendor prefixes [quirksmode.org], but it is the best option that currently exists to ensure that incompatible implementations do not use the same property name.
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Insightful)
A vendor prefix doesn’t mean “proprietary”—it means “experimental”. Once the standard reaches final recommendation status, which can only occur once two independent implementations have been created, then the vendor prefixes will be dropped.
Likewise, it is not a standard, then. If people code their pages to fit what Apple are currently touting as a standard, they will find in many cases that once the standards are solidified, they will have to recode to ensure cross-browser. support.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Developer Link (Score:5, Informative)
If you bother to follow the link and click on any of the demos, you'll see that it opens a page with a description, and when you click the "view demo" button, you get the SAME message stating that you need Safari to view some HTML5 demos.
Re:Developer Link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Developer Link (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that, of course, I've seen it mentioned that it's disingenuous to talk about standards while using webkit-specific tags. While I'm a happy user of many Apple products, I agree with this statement; if Apple are going to make webkit-specific tags, they should have full feature compatibility with their standarized equivalents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Same annoying Safari nag message here. Lame, just lame.
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that "other browsers", by and large, actually support HTML5 better than Safari.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the fact that Apple is just UA sniffing is shabby at best. Just checking [modernizr.com] for feature support isn't rocket surgery. Neither would be sending the least interesting summer intern to test the demos on a couple of other browsers that are likely to work and accepting those UAs as well. The fact that their "HTML5 demo" is just "transparent Safari propaganda" isn't illegal or anything; but talking up "web standards" and then hardcoding your demo to only work with your browser doesn't exactly scream "intellectual honesty"...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
(remember the good old days when large numbers of sites would shriek for IE; but render just fine if FF was set to IE's UA string?)
The good old days? Oh, I see, you mean 5 years ago. I thought you were talking about the ancientweb when Netscape roamed the net and sites held out signs like "Explorers only, we don't serve nomads here".
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Informative)
I thought you were talking about the ancientweb when Netscape roamed the net and sites held out signs like "Explorers only, we don't serve nomads here".
Ancient days were when many sites held out signs like "Netscape Navigator required", pissing off IE users to no end.
Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
The hypocrisy can be summed up on that single page:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs explains why iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad do not support Flash and why open standards are the future of the web.
This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari.
The next keynote should just have two massive murals of Stalin flanking the podium while Big Brother Steve tells you what you'll be allowed to do with your own equipment. And when he announces that they are no longer preventing you from running certain applications, that will become a feature. I guess he did learn a thing or two from Mr. Gates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that you claim the developer link [apple.com] doesn't require UA spoofing, even though any attempt to actually view the demo through that page brings up the very same "You’ll need to download Safari to view this demo" message, shows how absolutely blinded you are by your need to defend Apple. Slashdot isn't the evil one here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Insightful)
I ran the entire demo in Chrome and I had issues with the video, which is to be expected at this point, because they still can't pick a standard, and the CSS3 3-D transforms which I don't understand because Chrome supports 3-D transforms.
open /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app --args -user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.22.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7"
In this case I think Apple is right to limit the demo to Safari, because at this point not even Chrome works for all the demos. I don't like everything that Apple does, but in this case what are they supposed to do? Due to no standard being set on video, no other browser will properly render the demos. I do question what the deal with the CSS is.
Remember, this page is a showcase of Apple's products based on the not completely baked HTML 5 standard - it is not a general HTML 5 showcase:
The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript.
I think the submitter is twisting the purpose of the html5 page on apple.com, and there is a whole lot of piling on Apple in this discussion without any real basis. Again, right there on the page it says this that it shows how Apple's latest products support HTML 5. It doesn't say that apple.com supports the latest version of Firefox or IE.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are to accept what you say then the following can't be true:
Standards aren't standards if they're not standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards aren't standards if they're not standard.
Not sure what your point is. Apple's point at face value is that you can start using their products to start browsing HTML5/CSS3 sites today. If one company implements the agreed to standard and other companies don't that doesn't make the standard a non-standard...
I opened the page in Chrome and it didn't work 100%. Now, if you want to analyze Apple's source and point out where their site breaks standards, that would be something more interesting
You might have missed this bit as well:
Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Interesting)
The site can't break standards because there isn't a standard to break yet for HTML5/CSS3. All it really is just Apple showing what they think the standard should look like. However, it doesn't seem to stop Apple from claiming that their version is the "standard".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an interoperability demo, dumbass!
Which means that Firefox's "failing" is really Apple's own epic fail.
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Interesting)
Good lord let's get some universal standards in place, no matter what the hell they are.
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Insightful)
Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?! What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?
Trolling... Indeed... *shakes head*
Re:Chrome (Score:4, Interesting)
Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?!
How does it not comply with standards? Sure it filters users by agent string, but lots of Web sites do that. It's not non-standard at all.
What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?
This is the strawman logical fallacy paired with the implicit statement fallacy. You implicitly state in your question that fanboys don't realize Apple is simply profit minded. Since no one but you made that statement, it's just a strawman.
We're talking about Apple's demo of some new portions of the spec that are in the process of becoming a standard. Sure they want to do that because it will profit them in the long run, but the organic farmer down the street only works in the field because it will profit him in the long run. Just because someone is working for a profit does not mean what they're doing is "evil" or not beneficial to me, or for that matter that I don't realize they're working for a profit.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards and "Standards" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Standards and "Standards" (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is Microsoft 2.0
When they hit Microsoft 3.1, they will have finally achieved a usable level of evilness.
Re:Standards and "Standards" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say "less evil". I say "more scared". If Microsoft is working on interoperability, you know they're frightened of becoming irrelevant. Of course, helping Samba will severely cut into their share of the server market, because Samba4's unreadiness is still selling Windows licenses, but perhaps they're expecting to fail there anyway.
Re:Standards and "Standards" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Standards and "Standards" (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah. With their desire to subvert industry standards for their own gain, their love for releasing overpriced, crippled and locked-in products and their ability to convince their fanboys that Big Brother Knows Better(tm), Apple is more like the v2.0 of the '80s IBM than Microsoft or Adobe.
Re: (Score:2)
Better lay off that Android phone then, which uses Webkit, or anything that uses CUPS, or storing your email messages in mbox format, or anything that is included in Darwin that is also used in other Unix and Unix-like OSes.
On second thought, better just avoid Unix altogether - better to be safe, eh?
And since you're avoiding HTML5, I assume you won't use Youtube any more.
--
Your criticism might be valid if they were pushing some proprietary Apple-only standard (like ActiveX with MS), but they are pushing HTM
Re:Standards and "Standards" (Score:4, Interesting)
It was a demo designed to show off HTML5 and also promote Safari.
It was Webkit-specific CSS, which is a little funny in a demo designed to show off full web standards, but targeted engine CSS is not unique. One of the benefits of stylesheets is you can send specific CSS to different browsers. If the demo were tuned to Firefox, it would easily have delivered Gecko-specific CSS instead. As it is, they decided to use a user agent block, which was not all that great (the bulk of the talk is about the block, rather than the demo), when they should have just warned that the demos might fail on other browsers.
A properly designed website won't need to say "requires Safari or better" it'll just give the right stylesheet to the right browser. As long as they all support the (eventual) final HTML5 standard (and appropriate CSS), you can tailor a site to your browser.
Perhaps the ultimate goal is platform independence, but even with CSS2 and HTML4 that was just never on the cards.
Should there be engine-specific CSS? Ideally no, but all of the engines have it. It's up to the site designers themselves how they use the tools they have though - you don't have to use the specific stuff.
In the case of this demo, it might just be stopgap while they work on the generic html5 implementation - on the other demo someone posted below, Safari has some trouble with a couple of the generic ones, usually related to external borders. Who knows. It's all a bit up in the air until everything is finalised.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citations please.
What makes it erroneous?
Other than the original iTunes music (which had DRM at the RIAA's insistence, but is now gone) and iTunes movies (with still have DRM due to the movie studios), Apple's data formats are open.
You have mbox for email, documented XML for their iWork and iLife apps, AAC for audio, H.264 for video, .ics for calendars, vcard for address book, human readable plist files, support for NFS out of the box, CUPS for printing, use of png for screencapture format by default...
I t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't I just drop my game's C code into an HTML wrapper and have it work? Is your "better" UI in flash better than a native widget set provided by the OS your app is running on?
Also, I assume your Flash app is going to "run" on those android phones with no flash support, right?
We're not arguing that Apple is strongly vertically integrated - this is clearly the case, but you data is free to move in and out.
Your core C code is portable - you can take it right over to Android, and just connect it up to nat
A very nice HTML5+CSS3 demo that actually works (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, HTML5 is the future and as soon as we get rid of flash the better, but if you are going to try and show how its done, then do it right or don't do it at all, Apple.
Have a look at this: http://apirocks.com/html5/html5.html#slide1 [apirocks.com]
This is a very nice demo that doesn't tell you to get XYZ browser. Sure, some parts might not work at all if you are not running on the latest chrome or webkit browser, but most demos work and I find it to be a nicer way of doing things (IMHO).
(This was part of a presentation done by some googlers about HTML5 a few months ago)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmm... I wonder what the web will look like in 5-10 years?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HTML5 will be great! It will just take about 5-10 years for all the other browsers to adopt the standards carefully laid out today.
Thanks to Google, I don't think so. There are a lot of big players pushing hard at getting these adopted. MS will be a holdout as much as they can, but losing share in mobile Web use and overseas browsers share combined with Google's Chrome plug-in will make them much less able to pull it off. Web standards have stagnated a long time because of MS, but times are changing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Works fine on Opera, but whats impressive about it? It does not have a preloader nor transitions nor custom design. Flash can do the same since flash 5?
And you've been able to do the same thing with Silverlight and numerous other plug-ins... not with native HTML. That's what is impressive. Functionality using standards and not proprietary plug-ins.
HTML5 is not the future, it's a probable future, really really think if you'd like to support HTML5 when this show[sic] us that Apple have an agenda there, You think the web will be "more free (tm)" if Apple gets to decide what is a standard?
Apple has an agenda? What agenda is that, beyond making HTML5 more functional and useful for media and Web apps? And how does Apple decide what is the standard when they're one of several major companies contributing to the creation of it? You might as well say it's Google or Mozilla deciding the standard, as th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See http://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/2.0/geolocation [seamonkey-project.org] for a description of the how & why. In short, yes, the geolocation info comes from Google.
When you visit a location-aware website, SeaMonkey will ask you if you want to share your location.
If you consent, SeaMonkey gathers information about nearby wireless access points and your computer's IP address. Then SeaMonkey sends this information to the default geolocation service provider, Google Location Services, to get an estimate of your location. That location estimate is then shared with the requesting website.
If you say that you do not consent, SeaMonkey will not do anything.
A hard choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that it's meant to be a showcase of things to come, it makes sense to require you to use the one browser that currently works with it. Even Mozilla sometimes releases demos that require the latest Firefox beta to test. Using browser sniffing to enforce it is certainly bad form, but they probably thought that otherwise people would just click through, see a broken demo, and not even realize they aren't seeing what they're meant to see. Hopefully they'll relax the restriction once (if) more browsers implement support for these proposed new features.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On Snow Leopard, the demos work on Chrome 5.0.375.55 (latest official version) - I didn't even get a pop-up. The demos don't run as well as on Safari but most of them do work.
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 is still a work in progress. They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive. Or they could have made a demo that uses the latest bleeding-edge proposals for HTML5, and let it fail on most people's browsers - perhaps even worse. Given that it's meant to be a showcase of things to come, it makes sense to require you to use the one browser that currently works with it. Even Mozilla sometimes releases demos that require the latest Firefox beta to test. Using browser sniffing to enforce it is certainly bad form, but they probably thought that otherwise people would just click through, see a broken demo, and not even realize they aren't seeing what they're meant to see. Hopefully they'll relax the restriction once (if) more browsers implement support for these proposed new features.
This person was not fairly modded. HTML5 is still a work in progress. However, if HTML5 is to be standard, it must be patent-unencumbered and free/open-source.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive. Or they could have made a demo that uses the latest bleeding-edge proposals for HTML5, and let it fail on most people's browsers - perhaps even worse.
The problem of using the "latest bleeding-edge proposals" is that there's no certainity that they'll be approved, so showcasing them to developers in hopes of getting them to use them is extremely irresponsible if not downright 'evil', as if the devs use them and the proposal falls through your browser would be the only one their websites works in without rewriting potentially substantial parts of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of using the "latest bleeding-edge proposals" is that there's no certainity that they'll be approved, so showcasing them to developers in hopes of getting them to use them is extremely irresponsible if not downright 'evil', as if the devs use them and the proposal falls through your browser would be the only one their websites works in without rewriting potentially substantial parts of it.
That's a good point. Someone would have to look through the various features to see what their status is (draft, approved...). At any rate, it's true that this is a showcase of "what we would like HTML5 to be", rather than "what it is".
On the other hand, it's quite unlikely that people are going to start building websites that rely on those features, given Safari's small market share. What might happen is that web designers get interested and ask other browser makers to hurry up and add support for Apple's
Re:A hard choice (Score:5, Funny)
They should have made a demo in Flash so everyone could see it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know, I know! Let's write an HTML5 renderer in Flash!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that's not the point. The point is they advertise this as standards demo, not Safari demo. Ie. saying Safari is the only standards compliant browser, just like Microsoft telling IE is standards compliant.
Re:A hard choice (Score:5, Informative)
that's not the point. The point is they advertise this as standards demo, not Safari demo.
No they clearly advertise this as a demo of Safari, and it's support for HTML5. Here's the text:
HTML5 Showcase The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
They specifically call out this as a demo of what they've implemented in Safari so far.
Ie[sic]. saying Safari is the only standards compliant browser, just like Microsoft telling IE is standards compliant.
No they actually state that "Not all browsers offer this support" which very, very strongly implies that some other browsers do offer this support. They go on to briefly mention how other modern browsers are adding support for HTML5 features so everyone will be able to use these new standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Safari for Linux? Not likely. Apple's afraid to do that, or maybe just not competent enough to do it (which I doubt). Or maybe they are just too arrogant and self-centered.
Why does Apple want to make you download and install Safari?
Since they are already checking your browser to see the demo, why not have an alternative video file for each demo if your current browser doesn't support the individual demo? Why not try to show what their browser can do instead of making you install it in order to see what
Re: (Score:2)
What Apple should've done is written something like Microsoft's IE9 HTML5 demos [microsoft.com] that actually work in multiple browsers, and maybe just linked to it from their developer portal. I suspect they've tried to be too clever and shot themselves in the foot in this little 'standards' skirmish...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What Apple should've done is written something like Microsoft's IE9 HTML5 demos [microsoft.com] that actually work in multiple browsers, and maybe just linked to it from their developer portal.
Umm, Apple does link to all of these without the user agent filtering from their developer site. They also just posted these so Safari users could come take a look.
I suspect they've tried to be too clever and shot themselves in the foot in this little 'standards' skirmish...
Actually they tried to be open and cutting edge, but people with a chip on their shoulder insist on bashing them here, although I'm not sure why. The number of slanted summaries and absurdly negative interpretations make me wonder if it is an astroturf campaign.
Re:A hard choice (Score:5, Insightful)
HTML5 is still a work in progress. They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive.
Spot on. This is a Safari demo - they appear to be desperately trying to demonstrate why they aren't allowing Flash on their iDevices. At the very bottom of the page, there are two image/link thingys, one that says "iPad Ready" and another that says "Thoughts on Flash". Apple's goal here was to provide the shiniest, flashiest (but not Flashiest) html 5 demonstration they possible could, and only show it to the browser that will render it all perfectly. They're using published standards, that other browsers can (and probably will, eventually) support, and they're publishing the source code for all of the demos.
I really don't understand what all the vitriol is about on this thread. When your browser of choice can do the things with HTML 5 that Safari can in these demos, you'll be thrilled. What the hell is wrong with Apple pushing open standards? Okay - I get that the h.264 standard, while in some senses open, has some issues, but still - isn't this a good thing? Isn't it good for everyone that Apple is using some of that mountain of money they're sitting on to push an open standard, and at the very least reduce the necessity of the beast that is Flash?
Apple's just pushing existing standards (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see anything wrong with this, other than it making other browsers like FF3 look like they haven't been innovating.
some works in firefox with user agent switcher (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah but not fully, when viewing a video example under WebKit nightly I got a perspective switch that was not event present in Safari 4.
I really recommend downloading Safari 4 or even WebKit nightly (sorry Chrome users, no transform3D for you) and trying those demos, it is pretty neat, something to get really exited about.
Oh, and as for the QuickTime thing on windows machines, Safari uses it to handle html5 media playback, same as iTunes uses it for its media.
In Wine? (Score:2)
I really recommend downloading Safari 4 or even WebKit nightly
Does Safari 4 work in Wine?
User agent switcher helps a bit (Score:2)
User agent switcher turns some things on in Firefox.
http://chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/ [chrispederick.com]
with following settings:
Safari
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; ja-jp)
Mozilla
Safari
4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7
MacIntel
[empty]
[empty]
A lot is broken though.
Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Select the Typography demo
2) Select "Pincoya Black fonts"
3) Enter a couple of lines of lower case "o" (they are underlined)
4) Rotate slowly so you see the step by step motion
What you'll see: spacing between each "o" varies at each rotation step, and you can see "steps" in the underlining. That wouldn't happen with flash.
Basically while the fonts are anti-aliased, the position of each letter is computed as an integer. In flash, every coordinate is computed in floating point.
Welcome back to pixel world.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I'm never, ever, going to be asked to do that in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
What browser are you using? It seems fine in Chrome.
Re:Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (Score:4, Informative)
Flash uses pixels just like everything else too.
The thing is, Safari hasn't implemented sub-pixel calculations yet, thus you get that "jerkyness". That "pixel world" you meantion really means lack of sub-pixel calculation and only means lackluster implementation.
Its Apple (Score:2, Funny)
Once again Slashdot jumps to conclusions. The showcase is to promote Safari not web standards. The way the write up reads is that these are the web standards, and these are what they can do. Its blatant in the second paragraph, "The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript." that they are promoting Safari and not web standards. This our toy and this is why it works bette
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite.
This was supposed to be an HTML5 demo served up with a heaping helping of FUD.
"The demos below show how the latest version of Apple's Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support."
Their nonsense with browser sniffing is clearly a crass attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the unsuspecting user. They want to give the false impression that no one else supports this stuff. They want to create th
Would you like some cheese with your whine? (Score:2)
Would it help if they added the word "beta" to the title, like all those other sites on the web that don't want people complaining that not everything works yet the way it is supposed to?
Apple's the next microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the popular opinion, but think about it. M$ started out the same way.
- Get people hooked on the new-exciting-and-different (windows 3.1)
- you were a Luddite if you weren't adopting it
- People that new almost *nothing* about computers could "use" a computer
After the customer base was established, Microsoft Works came in and locked everyone into a proprietary format (they didn't know better). This was followed by Excel, Word and Access, and then Exchange.
Apple is taking the same road and once again people who don't know they don't know, don't know.
But Apple took the other fork - no lock-in (Score:4, Insightful)
After the customer base was established, Microsoft Works came in and locked everyone into a proprietary format
And how is Apple doing this? The webkit tags they are using, work in pretty much any up-to-date webkit browsers - which included Android or just about any other popular mobile device.
Apple is explicitly not locking you in, instead of going down that road they are strongly promoting a standard (HTML-5) and a powerful rendering engine (Webkit) that anyone can use.
Where's the locki-n?
MS have some generic HTML5 demos here... (Score:2)
No user agent checking, and they work (or don't work in the case of older IE versions) in different browsers...
The way I see it, it's just Apple using their current 'standards' press coverage to increase browser share among the general populace. Microsoft 2.0 indeed.
How dare Apple advertise their own products! (Score:5, Interesting)
Shock! horror! Apple are using their own website to push Safari and claim that their own browsers are ahead of the game on standards support? The bastards!!!
In large friendly letters on the page in question (my emphasis):
The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
Note how that doesn't say "Here's a handy resource to allow you to objectively compare different browsers' HTML 5 implementations"? That is because you are looking at an advert [wikipedia.org] for Safari! As is traditional in these "adverts" it is trying to get you to download and try Safari, not find out how close the competition comes. In other news, if you go to a Mercedes dealership they're not going to offer you test drives in a BMW...
Wake me up if anybody smart enough to spoof their browser ID finds out whether Apple's demos use undocumented or non-standard features (rather than ones which don't work in Firefox, yet).
Ok, you nerds need to get a clue. (Score:5, Insightful)
This was the executive summary for general public consumption.
If you wanted to look at the demos on other browsers, all you had to do was go to the http;//developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ link. Again, not everything will work on non-safari browers but most of them will work on the latest chrome.
This is all about presenting the technology to the average user in the best light when other browsers are still playing catchup.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Contrast your claim with the dialog which I just got from one of the demos, http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/video-effects.php [apple.com] (Firefox 3.6.3) when I click on the "View Demo" button:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IE5 (Score:3, Funny)
Mozilla needs to fix their HTML5 support (Score:3, Interesting)
It was odd seeing a Mozilla dev talking about them fully supporting HTML5. They may support almost as many features, but they all run like ass. Seriously, most HTML5 demos I see on Firefox aren't unusable because some feature isn't implement, but that they are just far too slow.
Safari's and Chrome's JavaScript engines are running circles around Firefox right now. I don't know why anyone interesting in HTML5 would even bother with Firefox. WebKit is eating their lunch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, yeah Apple considering you can't even access the demos with anything other than Safari. Repeat, you cannot even try them because it gives you a Download Safari popup. It won't let you in. So it's not that other browsers aren't HTML5 compatible (Chrome) it's that Apple won't even let you try.
Re: (Score:2)
you do know that apple merely took existing code and "created" webkit from it right?
it was called khtml.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that Firefox was "created" from existing code.
It was called Netscape.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which in turn was given to us by an Apple engineer with a time machine.
Take that, causality!
Re: (Score:2)
KHTML was a good solid base but 90% of work in WebKit was done by Apple.
Please provide a citation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, like it's possible to do. But just think about it - WebKit was forked from KHTML is 1998. Were you using a web browser in 1998?
I was using Mosaic on Linux back when you had to have Motif and build it yourself.
It should be ENTIRELY possible to figure out where the code came from in WebKit. But keep in mind that it first started with KHTML and further has received significant contributions from a variety of sources [webkit.org]. Apple claims only to have done the "majority" of work since the fork. The WebKit Wiki in fact credits other developers for many major features.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact that this page is only accessible using the Safari browser..."
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno if it supports IE9, but Chrome Experiments does allow Firefox (well, IceWeasel if it matters), Opera and Midori just fine, not just Chrome. Meanwhile, all of the above give an "You'll need to download Safari to view this demo." message on Apple's HTML5 website, all with the default UA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It works in Safari... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say Microsoft 2.0 is quite to the point.
Re: (Score:2)
By far Apple ain't biggest in IT, they are way smaller compared to some other companies. Say, HP, Dell, Microsoft, Nokia.
Re:Selling mine (Score:4, Interesting)
What DRM? Do you have movies on it from the iTunes store?
Re: (Score:2)
What DRM? How about the inability to manage the device from ANY computer using ANY tool of one's choosing and avoiding iTunes.
This is really handy when iTunes decides to stop working on your XP configuration (like the latest version of iTunes does).
Re:Selling mine (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not DRM.
The device is vertically integrated, and tied to iTunes, but DRM is a very specific term that relates to the "protection" of media content.
But it's ok, because copyright infringement is the same as piracy right? It's ok to play fast and loose with the definitions when it suits you.
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes is the DRM.
Re:Selling mine (Score:4, Insightful)
So DRM has gone the way of "bricked" and "literally" then.
Maybe the French were on to something with managing their language.
Re:http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that odd, really. Developers want to bang on things until they break. End users just want things to work. Ergo, the dev site lets you try the demos in any browser, while the end user site makes sure you have a browser that supports the demos 100%.
Why this is a story I have no idea. Mozilla, Google, and the WebKit team have been adding non-standard features and making tech demos that only work on specific versions of their own browser for years, but no one thinks they're trying to fragment the industry. Apple puts a browser detect on a page to ensure an end user demo works without a hiccup and geeks everywhere are up in arms. Go figure.