Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
Seriously, your grievance should be with Appleinsider, if anybody, for according to you not explaining the process better. We can only comment on the story as written.
To be fair, Hixie never specified Canvas in his blog.
Not making emotion-filled rants based on little to no data is not what the internet is about. Welcome to the forum and thank you for voicing your PoV on this matter. I'm sure it's far from over.
Thanks, and I liked your quote about the internet...
Shouldn't Apple say something like "I am Apple. I have two cows. I sell them both to the neighbour with 60% margin and purchase 4 new ones from breeder in China"..?
No, honestly - isn't every corporation trying to protect what brings them money? Isn't Apple doing the same by preventing iDevices to sync with alternative media managers? Or by preventing people to run OSX on alternative (yet compatible) hardware?
We don't even know the reason for Adobe's objection. What if it is violation of Adobe's patents? Anyone really expects they should play Mother Teresa and let it be?
Really?
There are no patent rights by Adobe. Apple however has the patents.
On March 14, 2007, WebKit developer Dave Hyatt forwarded an email from Apple's Senior Patent Counsel, Helene Plotka Workman[6], which stated that Apple reserved all intellectual property rights relative to WHATWG’s Web Applications 1.0 Working Draft, dated March 24, 2005, Section 10.1, entitled “Graphics: The bitmap canvas” [sic][7], but left the door open to licensing the patents should the specification be transferred to a standards body with a formal patent policy. This caused considerable discussion among web developers, and raised questions concerning the WHATWG's lack of a policy on patents in comparison to the W3C's explicit favoring of royalty-free licenses. Apple later disclosed the patents under the W3C's royalty-free patent licensing terms.[8] The disclosure means that Apple is required to provide royalty-free licensing for the patent whenever the Canvas element becomes part of a future W3C recommendation created by the HTML working group.
They've been ripping holes in the ionosphere with HAARP since the 70's or before, attempting to replicate tesla's theories.
I would certainly count that as man's fault.
That's paid for by our tax dollars as well.
I really hate uninformed and Idealogical arguments....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Convoluted, fatulous logic to back up a democrat argument? Oh, those rapidly shrinking ice caps... maybe it's just the end process when the Earth was glacially covered during an earlier Ice Age and has nothing to do with Al Gores private jet polluting the atmosphere as he jet sets all over the world spreading his FUD! Talk about one "betraying their country"!!
Seems warming, cooling, cooling and warming is what this world does best despite man! \
I believe Adobe has a better chance at convincing me that the bugs in Flash will be corrected then Al Gore does at convincing me of his concluding arguments on Global Warming, oh wait, they are changing it to Climate Change so that if it's cold, it's man's fault, if it's warm it's man's fault, if it snows 30 inches in Washington, it's man's fault, if their are Summer droughts, it's man's fault, if there is a hurricane, it's man's fault...
Is anyone really surprised that this story turned out to be a gross misrepresentation of the facts? This is AppleInsider after all. The tabloid of apple news.
It does if you think (ie. use your brain). FIX THE PROCESS. Stop Adobe from being able to do this! It's not as if asking them to stop is going to work, so remove their ability to do so (which never should have existed in the first place.) Duh?
I see this as an attempt to lay down a false dichotomy.
Spare me the common Republican mantra of morality.
Please spare us the common insertion political parties and national politics when it wasn't in the topic in the first place. I don't even understand how you got there from the post you replied to, it looks like a topic shift without a clutch.
Politics is off topic for threads on AI unless the story is political or you're posting in Political Outsider. Wearing your politics on your arm band isn't the way things go here. Any further political posting is just going to be deletion fodder.
macromedia was a poison pill before macromedia when adobe bought out another company they would actually improve the programs (usually within a version or 2) it is very sad that 4 years later flash still is almost unusable. timeline still sucks and there still no decent workflow from PS to AE to Flash (something that existed with LiveMotion 10 years ago). don't even get me started with dreamweaver?
There no question that we are no longer dealing with the adobe of old. if steve makes a pro version of iweb and something that can actually take the place of AI and PS then adobe deserves to loose it's lunch.
However, having read the links Shelley provided, and the public email Larry sent, it seems AI is correct in all assertions made. The Adobe rep is indeed assisting, at least, in stalling the progress of HTML5. Particularly the canvas element, attempting to appeal a judgement that it should be included within the scope of the proposed standard. This doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than trying to forestall competition to Flash, so all the points on morality made above still apply. This doesn't seem to be some kind of misunderstanding. One could argue that attempting to change the definition of what HTML5 means by trying to exclude certain elements that would clearly compete with, and perhaps obsolesce, extremely profitable products in your portfolio could be classed as anti-competitive behaviour, despite the fate of the standard as a whole. This, if true, would be an apalling violation of privilege and the concept of openness.
Personally, I see the iPad as a good Flash-slayer. Websites have been optimised for the iPhone. There will be more people (as a percentage of owners at least) who use Safari on their iPads guaranteed. With much more horsepower, the iPad should be a good candidate for rich HTML5 apps, something Adobe clearly fears greatly.
At the end of the day though, the onus will be in the developer to provide a system of gracefully "degrading" (not sure if that term applies to the Flash experience!) to support other browsers or operating systems. Hell we've been doing it for IE for years. And HTML5 is (excluding fullscreen video, apparently) more of an upgrade.
macromedia was a poison pill before macromedia when adobe bought out another company they would actually improve the programs (usually within a version or 2) it is very sad that 4 years later flash still is almost unusable. timeline still sucks and there still no decent workflow from PS to AE to Flash (something that existed with LiveMotion 10 years ago). don't even get me started with dreamweaver?
There no question that we are no longer dealing with the adobe of old. if steve makes a pro version of iweb and something that can actually take the place of AI and PS then adobe deserves to loose it's lunch.
If only Apple would make a pro version of iWeb. In a few versions Pixelmator will replace Photoshop. Pages just needs export to EBook format. Then all we need is a good replacement for Illustrator.
Who would need Adobe and their bloated $500 plus a year upgrades?
I'm a member of the HTML WG, but I'm not speaking for the HTML WG, or W3C. I'm only expressing my opinion, and what I know to be facts. I'm also not an employee of Google, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other company (I'm a writer, for O'Reilly).
There is no truth to this rumor. The posting here is inaccurate. Grossly inaccurate I would add.
This was an issue that has been under discussion, off and on, on the publicly accessible HTML WG for months. It has to do with scope and charter, not the specifications themselves. The Adobe representative to the HTML WG registered his concerns about the fact that the HTML WG is working on specifications that push, or exceed the group's charter. This includes Microdata, RDFa-in-HTML, and the 2D Canvas API.
Adobe is not blocking any specification. There are dozens of issues that are "blocking" HTML5, if you want to use that term, of which I'm responsible for many at this time. Technically the HTML5 specification can't advance to Last Call status until these issues are resolved. However, the W3C management can override my issues, and the issues of any individual or company. No one company can block the advancement of any specification without the concurrence of the W3C leadership.
All of these issues are based on improving all of the specifications, including HTML5 and Canvas. it's unfortunate that the HTML5 editor, who is also the Google representative to the HTML WG introduced such wild, and unfounded speculation, causing harm not only to the Adobe representative, but distracting all of us from the work of finishing the HTML5 and other specifications.
I would hope that people would seek to get confirmation before posting unfounded accusations.
Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
I see your point. However, it is a dilemma isn't it? Using your logic, again which I can totally see as valid in many cases, rumor sites should have no comments on any of their posts until the rumor is proven to be fact or fiction. They may as well close down in that case if you think about it. Then we'd just have news sites I guess. I wonder what your take on this is?
Comments
ClickToFlash
After reading this thread some might want ClickToAdobe.
Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
Seriously, your grievance should be with Appleinsider, if anybody, for according to you not explaining the process better. We can only comment on the story as written.
Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
But Prince McLean wouldn't have written it if it weren't true, right?
Why? What is so important about that specific date?
That is the date Shantan Narayen became COO.
Ed
To be fair, Hixie never specified Canvas in his blog.
Not making emotion-filled rants based on little to no data is not what the internet is about.
Thanks, and I liked your quote about the internet...
One can always hope ;-)
Good point. It was $3.4 billion, btw. (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invr...acromedia.html).
I stand corrected.
Shouldn't Apple say something like "I am Apple. I have two cows. I sell them both to the neighbour with 60% margin and purchase 4 new ones from breeder in China"..?
No, honestly - isn't every corporation trying to protect what brings them money? Isn't Apple doing the same by preventing iDevices to sync with alternative media managers? Or by preventing people to run OSX on alternative (yet compatible) hardware?
We don't even know the reason for Adobe's objection. What if it is violation of Adobe's patents? Anyone really expects they should play Mother Teresa and let it be?
Really?
There are no patent rights by Adobe. Apple however has the patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_...ty_over_canvas
Intellectual property over canvas
On March 14, 2007, WebKit developer Dave Hyatt forwarded an email from Apple's Senior Patent Counsel, Helene Plotka Workman[6], which stated that Apple reserved all intellectual property rights relative to WHATWG’s Web Applications 1.0 Working Draft, dated March 24, 2005, Section 10.1, entitled “Graphics: The bitmap canvas” [sic][7], but left the door open to licensing the patents should the specification be transferred to a standards body with a formal patent policy. This caused considerable discussion among web developers, and raised questions concerning the WHATWG's lack of a policy on patents in comparison to the W3C's explicit favoring of royalty-free licenses. Apple later disclosed the patents under the W3C's royalty-free patent licensing terms.[8] The disclosure means that Apple is required to provide royalty-free licensing for the patent whenever the Canvas element becomes part of a future W3C recommendation created by the HTML working group.
I would certainly count that as man's fault.
That's paid for by our tax dollars as well.
I really hate uninformed and Idealogical arguments....
Convoluted, fatulous logic to back up a democrat argument? Oh, those rapidly shrinking ice caps... maybe it's just the end process when the Earth was glacially covered during an earlier Ice Age and has nothing to do with Al Gores private jet polluting the atmosphere as he jet sets all over the world spreading his FUD! Talk about one "betraying their country"!!
Seems warming, cooling, cooling and warming is what this world does best despite man!
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
I believe Adobe has a better chance at convincing me that the bugs in Flash will be corrected then Al Gore does at convincing me of his concluding arguments on Global Warming, oh wait, they are changing it to Climate Change so that if it's cold, it's man's fault, if it's warm it's man's fault, if it snows 30 inches in Washington, it's man's fault, if their are Summer droughts, it's man's fault, if there is a hurricane, it's man's fault...
It does if you think (ie. use your brain). FIX THE PROCESS. Stop Adobe from being able to do this! It's not as if asking them to stop is going to work, so remove their ability to do so (which never should have existed in the first place.) Duh?
I see this as an attempt to lay down a false dichotomy.
Spare me the common Republican mantra of morality.
Please spare us the common insertion political parties and national politics when it wasn't in the topic in the first place. I don't even understand how you got there from the post you replied to, it looks like a topic shift without a clutch.
Politics is off topic for threads on AI unless the story is political or you're posting in Political Outsider. Wearing your politics on your arm band isn't the way things go here. Any further political posting is just going to be deletion fodder.
There no question that we are no longer dealing with the adobe of old. if steve makes a pro version of iweb and something that can actually take the place of AI and PS then adobe deserves to loose it's lunch.
They spent > $4 Billion on a turd and want to grow that pile of crap.
Someone please 86 this jerk.
He does not contribute to this site.
Forget about us web designers, what about our clients who spent thousands on all Flash sites cause we told them it was the shit. Now it is shit.
Flash developers are not web designers. Web designers would never develop an all Flash site.
Personally, I see the iPad as a good Flash-slayer. Websites have been optimised for the iPhone. There will be more people (as a percentage of owners at least) who use Safari on their iPads guaranteed. With much more horsepower, the iPad should be a good candidate for rich HTML5 apps, something Adobe clearly fears greatly.
At the end of the day though, the onus will be in the developer to provide a system of gracefully "degrading" (not sure if that term applies to the Flash experience!) to support other browsers or operating systems. Hell we've been doing it for IE for years. And HTML5 is (excluding fullscreen video, apparently) more of an upgrade.
Down with Flash! Buggy, a doorway for malware, resource hog, and buggy. Oh, did I say buggy twice?
Yep, you sure did say it twice and I take it to mean emphasis. I second the motion (no pun intended).
macromedia was a poison pill before macromedia when adobe bought out another company they would actually improve the programs (usually within a version or 2) it is very sad that 4 years later flash still is almost unusable. timeline still sucks and there still no decent workflow from PS to AE to Flash (something that existed with LiveMotion 10 years ago). don't even get me started with dreamweaver?
There no question that we are no longer dealing with the adobe of old. if steve makes a pro version of iweb and something that can actually take the place of AI and PS then adobe deserves to loose it's lunch.
If only Apple would make a pro version of iWeb. In a few versions Pixelmator will replace Photoshop. Pages just needs export to EBook format. Then all we need is a good replacement for Illustrator.
Who would need Adobe and their bloated $500 plus a year upgrades?
Ed
I'm a member of the HTML WG, but I'm not speaking for the HTML WG, or W3C. I'm only expressing my opinion, and what I know to be facts. I'm also not an employee of Google, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other company (I'm a writer, for O'Reilly).
There is no truth to this rumor. The posting here is inaccurate. Grossly inaccurate I would add.
This was an issue that has been under discussion, off and on, on the publicly accessible HTML WG for months. It has to do with scope and charter, not the specifications themselves. The Adobe representative to the HTML WG registered his concerns about the fact that the HTML WG is working on specifications that push, or exceed the group's charter. This includes Microdata, RDFa-in-HTML, and the 2D Canvas API.
Adobe is not blocking any specification. There are dozens of issues that are "blocking" HTML5, if you want to use that term, of which I'm responsible for many at this time. Technically the HTML5 specification can't advance to Last Call status until these issues are resolved. However, the W3C management can override my issues, and the issues of any individual or company. No one company can block the advancement of any specification without the concurrence of the W3C leadership.
All of these issues are based on improving all of the specifications, including HTML5 and Canvas. it's unfortunate that the HTML5 editor, who is also the Google representative to the HTML WG introduced such wild, and unfounded speculation, causing harm not only to the Adobe representative, but distracting all of us from the work of finishing the HTML5 and other specifications.
I would hope that people would seek to get confirmation before posting unfounded accusations.
The HTML WG thread related to this issue:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0349.html
The Adobe Rep's initial concerns:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0006.html
Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
I see your point. However, it is a dilemma isn't it? Using your logic, again which I can totally see as valid in many cases, rumor sites should have no comments on any of their posts until the rumor is proven to be fact or fiction. They may as well close down in that case if you think about it. Then we'd just have news sites I guess. I wonder what your take on this is?