Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jun 2010 15:36 UTC
Internet & Networking Earlier this week, Apple launched a HTML5 Showcase page, displaying several uses for HTML5 and related technologies. However, it turns out that Apple is using trickery to block out browsers other than Safari, with the end result that browsers with better support for web standards than Safari can't access the demos.
Thread beginning with comment 428153
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:32 UTC in reply to "Still unclear"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

It does not matter one bit how good Flash and Silverlight are.

Tell me, why did Google go through all the trouble of compiling Java code into an insane mess of HTML and JavaScript—full of hacks for faulty browsers—instead of just serving users a Java app? Or Flash? Or Adobe AIR? Or Silverlight? All those technologies are far more capable than HTML!

It doesn’t matter how much better any of those technologies are, they are not the web. They do not evolve in the same way and they have all failed in solving _basic_ accessibility and the right for the user to decide how they want to view their page according to their requirements.

The web is simply better for _users_. Not for ad-men and designers who like to over do the lensflare.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Still unclear
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:44 in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
yoshi314@gmail.com Member since:
2009-12-14

--comment in a wrong place

Edited 2010-06-04 16:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Still unclear
by Kilogramm on Fri 4th Jun 2010 16:58 in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
Kilogramm Member since:
2010-05-04

The web is the totality of all things, not only those approved by the W3C. If we stuck only to the W3C we would not have YouTube, Facebook, Hulu.

Let the users decide what is best. I myself prefer things that first of all work, and second of all work well. W3C politics is very low on my and many people's lists of priorities.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 17:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Opera invented the video tag. Apple invented the canvas tag. Microsoft invented ContentEditable and XMLHTTPRequest.

The web is the sum of healthy competition with browser vendors coming up with ideas and providing them in a way everybody can implement.

Total IE domination ensured that there was no more features for the web, which is why Flash became the mainstay for video. The healthier market we have now immediately shows the difference with how quickly features are being adopted across all browsers. Had we had a healthy market back in 2003, then there’s no reason to not believe that HTML video couldn’t have been implemented then. Microsoft could have not cared less, was the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Still unclear
by oinet on Sun 6th Jun 2010 20:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

The web is the totality of all things, not only those approved by the W3C. If we stuck only to the W3C we would not have YouTube, Facebook, Hulu.


For the 10^1000'th time: Hulu is not, nor has anything to do with, "The web".

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Still unclear
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Jun 2010 00:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The web is the totality of all things, not only those approved by the W3C. If we stuck only to the W3C we would not have YouTube, Facebook, Hulu. Let the users decide what is best. I myself prefer things that first of all work, and second of all work well. W3C politics is very low on my and many people's lists of priorities.


Depending on exactly what you define as "the web" it may or may not be only those standards approved by the W3C.

This does absolutely nothing to change the fact that HTML5 is a W3C standard. The totality of HTML5 IS only that which is approved by the W3C.

W3C patent policy (which includes its policy for HTML5) is here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
The W3C Patent Policy governs the handling of patents in the process of producing Web standards. The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.


Therefore h.264 support (for example) is NOT HTML5. Period. Never was, never will be.

Edited 2010-06-07 00:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Still unclear
by Nelson on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:21 in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes it does. The needs of people are real, despite the fact that HTML5 and other open standards offerings have no caught up. The lack of progress on that front does not make the problems of everyday users disappear.

HTML5 or not, people are going to want RIAs, and even HTML5 if implemented perfectly in every browser, would not come close to offering the level of productivity Silverlight does.

We're holding back progress for the sake of ubiquity, and it's laughable how far ahead Silverlight is for RIAs and video.

The video tag will never gain critical mass without support for a protected path, there's just no way you're going to convince content providers to do so.

I think the browser vendors could be more productive in getting HTML5 interactive demos running above a few frames a second before trashing RIA platforms like Silverlight and AIR (Yes, even AIR, and AIR sucks.)

HTML5 is gaining ubiquity in name only. The place where HTML5 is most prevalent, an entire mobile thicket of websites coded for the iPhone using -webkit- extensions. Is that really the kind of same markup you want? You're creating the same situation IE created for itself years ago.

It does matter how much faster Silverlight is (dramatically faster, in case you didn't know), at least to pragmatic employers who want an RIA which isn't constrained by the ridiculous monolithic processes at the W3C.

The issue of accessibility was tackled in Silverlight.. since Silverlight 2..

The UI Automation framework has built in support for screen readers. Silverlight also supports robust keyboard navigation capabilities.

Silverlight supports browser zooming (which is vector based and works better than even Html content).

For high contrast you can either write your own style or apply a pixel shader to the screen (as of SL3).

A lot of the so called issues with Silverlight are fabricated. Plain and simple

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Still unclear
by PresentIt on Fri 4th Jun 2010 18:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The needs of people are real, despite the fact that HTML5 and other open standards offerings have no caught up. The lack of progress on that front does not make the problems of everyday users disappear.

Lack of progress? LOL.

We're holding back progress for the sake of ubiquity

No, what's holding back progress is stuff like Flash and Silverlight. These are extremely restrictive. Have you seen what it's finally possible to do with native video support in browsers? Flash and Silverlight could only dream of that.

The video tag will never gain critical mass without support for a protected path, there's just no way you're going to convince content providers to do so.

The most popular video site on the web is moving to HTML5.

I think the browser vendors could be more productive in getting HTML5 interactive demos running above a few frames a second before trashing RIA platforms like Silverlight and AIR (Yes, even AIR, and AIR sucks.)

So, you clearly haven't seen the latest browser demos.

Silverlight supports browser zooming (which is vector based and works better than even Html content).

Silverlight is a dead end.

A lot of the so called issues with Silverlight are fabricated. Plain and simple

Much like your issues with HTML5, then.

Edited 2010-06-04 18:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Still unclear
by pooo on Fri 4th Jun 2010 19:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

Freedom, platform independence, and open standards are big deal to a large segment of *developers*. Most end users don't know the difference but there is a powerful movement within the web development community that doesn't care about your precious frame rates. Chrome, IE9, Firefox are all fast *enough* and featureful *enough*.

You seem to think this debate is entirely about the abstract technical merits of each option but it is not! There are bigger issues and the technical merits of Silverlight vs HTML5. You may be right that Silverlight is better in many ways but HTML5 on the new breed of faster browsers is *good enough* and the additional benefits of Silverlight are not meaningful.

So you may argue based on technical merits that Silverlight won't die but know that *most* developers want it to die badly, and want HTML5 to succeed badly, and very large powerful corporations want the same. So, even though you could render overlays on video at 2x the frame rate (good for you), Silverlight might still lose this war.

I'm really sorry you invested so much of your time into something that everyone hates and is on questionably ethical grounds. Maybe you should just embrace HTML5 yourself and see that it isn't so bad, and you can actually feel good about it instead of having to go around ripping people and avoiding the real issues of the debate.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Neolander on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

About silverlight performance, I installed moonlight v2 on my linux box some months ago out of curiosity.

Then I went to www.silverlight.net as a test. The embedded animation made my browser totally sluggish and ran at about 5 fps.
Now if I run some heavy flash app like GrooveShark or start heavy tabbed browsing on YouTube, I NEVER encounter such a bad performance. Only ~12 fps and some short browser lags here and there. And those flash apps do way more interesting (and probably way more power-savvy) things than showcasing Flash features.

Maybe moonlight has improved in v3. But as of v2, it was not a reasonable Flash replacement, at least on linux (and almost everybody here knows how terrible Flash performance already is on Linux)

Edited 2010-06-04 20:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Still unclear
by nt_jerkface on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:04 in reply to "RE: Still unclear"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Tell me, why did Google go through all the trouble of compiling Java code into an insane mess of HTML and JavaScript—full of hacks for faulty browsers—instead of just serving users a Java app? Or Flash? Or Adobe AIR? Or Silverlight? All those technologies are far more capable than HTML!


They also have billions in the bank so funding a massive AJAX project without regard for productivity is not a problem for them.

But small and medium developers with experience in Adobe technologies and .net are not going jump on the javascript bandwagon unless forced.

Flash has a 97% install base, good luck explaining to Flash developers as to why they should abandon their experience for a smaller user base.


It doesn’t matter how much better any of those technologies are, they are not the web.


You don't have the authority to define what the web is.


They do not evolve in the same way and they have all failed in solving _basic_ accessibility and the right for the user to decide how they want to view their page according to their requirements.


That is a right you have declared in your head, not one that actually exists as part of some internet charter.

If you don't like the services being offered through Flash or any other proprietary technology then don't use it. Flash provides a technology medium that both producers and users find value in. Online games especially make use of Flash and if you have such a problem with it then start coding those Javascript alternatives. Have fun with that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Still unclear
by Kroc on Fri 4th Jun 2010 20:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Still unclear"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But small and medium developers with experience in Adobe technologies and .net are not going jump on the javascript bandwagon unless forced.


Force is being applied. The news has been filled from even before Apple launched the iPad. The writing has been on the wall.

You don't have the authority to define what the web is.


Yes I do! Because it’s an open platform that I can and do contribute to. I can contribute to the source code of various web browsers, I can participate in the HTML5 process and have mailed Hixie on occasions. I help test HTML5 features on my site and I teach others how to use it. I define the web because I use it. That applies to us all. The web is all of us, not only Adobe, or only Microsoft, or only Apple.

That is a right you have declared in your head, not one that actually exists as part of some internet charter.


Equality and freedom from discrimination is a human right and accessibility for disabled persons on the web is legally protected in the UK.

If you don't like the services being offered through Flash or any other proprietary technology then don't use it.


I don’t.

Online games especially make use of Flash and if you have such a problem with it then start coding those Javascript alternatives. Have fun with that.


I have. I didn’t have time to finish these projects off, but none the less, they exist and I made them way before people thought it was possible. http://code.google.com/p/jaxgames/

Also see http://lordofultima.com for what’s possible with money and professional developers.

Reply Parent Score: 3