or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5 - Page 5

post #161 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Showcasing how these extensions work in Safari is how Apple is pushing Chrome and Firefox to adopt these functions.

And what's the point if the web page is still hard-coded to require Safari in order to view it? How will anyone know how well Chrome and Firefox support these functions if only Safari is allowed to view the page? Apple touts HTML 5 as being open to everyone. Apple does not own HTML 5, yet they are trying to act as the gatekeeper of who is worthy enough to be considered HTML 5 compliant. The best way for Apple to show the "openness" of HTML 5 and the capabilities of various browsers should be to let people view their web page in all browsers so they can make an informed judgement for themselves.
post #162 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

There is nothing that prevents other browsers from adopting these features. The reason it only works in Safari is because Safari is adding them faster than any other browser.

Are you saying that the web page is coded to look for support for specific features, rather than specific browsers? So any other browser that supports these functions will be able to properly access all the features of the web page as it exists right now, without getting the "Safari required" message? And Apple would not have to change the coding in any way?
post #163 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I hope and expect "the future" to be an improvement on the present. Not the same or worse.

Amen to this, I certainly agree.
post #164 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

All of what you said is for naught. You SHOULDN'T have to explain Apple's position. It should be abundantly clear. If Apple wanted to showcase how HTML5 is the future, they should have posted up the demos on the main page that actually WORK WITH MULTIPLE BROWSERS instead of putting up Safari-specific demos and a "hard check" saying that only Safari is supported and you must download Safari in order to see it work.

It totally blows a hole in their argument by doing something like this. Whatever happened to "It just works". Pointing to developer pages and having to specifically point out what browser supports what is something that man people are critical about with the "Windows Clan".

Did you even understand what was said?! The other browsers don't support enough of the HTML5+CSS3+Javascript combo to fully show off what Apple wants to show.
post #165 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

No, YOU'RE really stupid if you don't realize that they simply want these demos to work well with a tested browser and to give a good first impression. Full HTML5 support will eventually spread to other browsers. It's also Apple's demo, and they have the right to promote their own products. Just move on if you don't like any of this.

Ummm... If Apple's point is that people shouldn't use Flash because it's not a web standard, then they make people download their own browser to show how it could replace Flash, then they've lost their point.

Apple is welcome to show how great html5 works in their own browser, but it's not going to make anyone forget Flash the way that they're trying to do it.
post #166 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


I think you figured out who at Apple posted the page!
post #167 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

And what's the point if the web page is still hard-coded to require Safari in order to view it? How will anyone know how well Chrome and Firefox support these functions if only Safari is allowed to view the page? Apple touts HTML 5 as being open to everyone. Apple does not own HTML 5, yet they are trying to act as the gatekeeper of who is worthy enough to be considered HTML 5 compliant. The best way for Apple to show the "openness" of HTML 5 and the capabilities of various browsers should be to let people view their web page in all browsers so they can make an informed judgement for themselves.

That's complete rubbish.

HTML 5 is an open standard IN DEVELOPMENT, but the only way for apple to guarantee in a developers showcase that it functions as it should, they will have to do so in their browser. Because the whole effing point is to show how well it works WITH the prerequisite browser support, not open it up to any legacy browser and get a false negative that it doesn't.

Apple hasn't claimed anywhere that html5 is widely supported, so they now have to back up their claim by having these demos run on any browser, what they have been saying is that it's the future, it's the right horse to ride for them and the web in general. So you guarantee that this standard runs well by enabling your browser to run it well, and it's there that you demonstrate it.

What you are saying is akin a standards body developing a new energy efficient braking system to go into all cars in the future, and audi come out with their implementation, and they somehow should not be showcasing this in their cars, but they should retrofit yugos and kias to see how well it's gonna work there too. Of course it's not gonna work well or at all there, because it's up to the other manufacturers to adopt the standard, not audi.

Please enough with the garbage comments...
post #168 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

It is not wrong. Read my post. I'm referring to the users of IE and windows ... in other words the lions share of the market!

The problem is that lion's share as you call it is broken up into 25.18% IE 8, 17.16% for IE 6 (2003), 12.04% for IE 7 (2006), and some 5.37% into older versions.

The windows OS mix is even more of a disaster with 62.55% being XP--a Windows operating system from 9 years ago; ie as old as Puma (10.1) Some 15.25% deal with Vista (poor things), and only 12.68% use Windows 7. In other words the Windows OS that I as a Mac user will admit to being very descent as a lower marketshare then the Windows OS that Windows users said via how fast they adopted it was a pile of crap.

The lionshare of the market is running XP (62.55%) and or using some archaic (ie pre 2007) version of IE (34.57%). Why should Apple cater to a bunch of people who in computer terms are using museum pieces?
post #169 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

Did you even understand what was said?! The other browsers don't support enough of the HTML5+CSS3+Javascript combo to fully show off what Apple wants to show.

What is Apple's evidence that the other browsers don't support those features well enough? They have provided none. All they have done is basically say "Trust me".

Apple could have removed the browser-checking requirement and added a note stating that the demos are best viewed using a modern browser which supports all the features in question. Then people would be able to see for themselves how much "better" Safari is at supporting these features. In order for something to be "better", don't you need a basis for comparison?

What would be the point of the Acid 3 test if the test itself was coded to only allow Firefox to run the test?

Does W3C validation still matter? Then by Apple's own example, no web browser, not even Safari, should be allowed to open Apple's web site. Even Steve's "Thoughts on Flash" page produces validation errors.
post #170 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The fact that CSS 3D Transformations works on my iPhone right now. An no parts of Flash work at all....yeah it is pretty great!

sure. And just how many developers out there are churning it all out by the hundreds of thousands, -right now-?

It's all "gonna", just like SJ said about flash. One -could- argue flash is a bit ahead given it's now working quite well in beta for current phones, and would likely work quite well on the new iphone, if, it were even allowed.

When html5 finally becomes supported enough for developers to really embrace it, and it will, (despite whether microsloth tries to slow it down or not) flash for mobile will be well into it's second gen version, and on it's way to many more phones. And, it'll likely, (hopefully) be more used for what it should be, and we'll use html5 for the stuff -it- can do.

As I said, I believe there's room for both technologies.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #171 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by ai46 View Post

Here's a nice site that shows you the various HTML5 readiness states of different browsers. This isn't a "Review" blog, they actually test the capabilities of each browser. Paul Irish is one of the developers of Modernizr.

http://html5readiness.com/

Great link. I was searching that the site earlier today but couldn't find it.

To reiterate, most of the HTML5 and CSS3 are already in Opera and Firefox, except for 3D Transforms, which I think at least one Safari demo is using.

Others, like Transforms, are still a working draft so they have browser-engine-specific suffixes which will fall off once they become RC.There is nothing stopping any future-forward developer from simply adding the simple text to make it work with the other browsers.

Apple clearly made these demos to show how far ahead in standards compliance Safari is over their browser competition. So all these arguments that Apple should make the demos work with the lowest common denominator or its a win for Flash are asinine and silly.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #172 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

What is Apple's evidence that the other browsers don't support those features well enough? They have provided none. All they have done is basically say "Trust me".

Before we argue this point, can you point me to where Apple claimed other browsers do not support these standards well enough?
post #173 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

What you are saying is akin a standards body developing a new energy efficient braking system to go into all cars in the future, and audi come out with their implementation, and they somehow should not be showcasing this in their cars, but they should retrofit yugos and kias to see how well it's gonna work there too. Of course it's not gonna work well or at all there, because it's up to the other manufacturers to adopt the standard, not audi.

Please enough with the garbage comments...

Please enough with the car analogies

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #174 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

The problem is that lion's share as you call it is broken up into 25.18% IE 8, 17.16% for IE 6 (2003), 12.04% for IE 7 (2006), and some 5.37% into older versions.

The windows OS mix is even more of a disaster with 62.55% being XP--a Windows operating system from 9 years ago; ie as old as Puma (10.1) Some 15.25% deal with Vista (poor things), and only 12.68% use Windows 7. In other words the Windows OS that I as a Mac user will admit to being very descent as a lower marketshare then the Windows OS that Windows users said via how fast they adopted it was a pile of crap.

The lionshare of the market is running XP (62.55%) and or using some archaic (ie pre 2007) version of IE (34.57%). Why should Apple cater to a bunch of people who in computer terms are using museum pieces?

apple shouldn't care. but website developers care a great deal. They (windows) dominate the market.
post #175 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


Apple clearly made these demos to show how far ahead in standards compliance Safari is over their browser competition. So all these arguments that Apple should make the demos work with the lowest common denominator or its a win for Flash are asinine and silly.

There you go again using common sense and sound logic.
post #176 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Please enough with the car analogies

Car analogies are like buses, another one will be along in a few minutes.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #177 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Ignoring the misconstruction of the term "Pre-Alpha", the fact that it's still an Alpha, not even a Beta, and hasn't been available on Android for a couple years now much less June 2010 shows just much ground Mozilla has to make up just to even have a viable mobile product.

Do you honestly believe Android has no browser?

First, a brief reality check about Firefox:

May 2010
MSIE: 59.75%
Firefox: 24.32%
Chrome: 7.04%
Safari: 4.77%
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

Macs make up 5.4% of the computing market, so Safari's 4.77% means that a good many Mac folks don't even like it.

Meanwhile, Firefox is bundled only with Linux, and must be a conscious decision for anyone else to choose, download, and install, yet one of every four people on the web prefer it - five times as many as the OS-bundled Safari.

Besides, it's not like Android doesn't ship with a browser already.

And if you weren't aware that browser is based on WebKit. Yes, that WebKit, the same FOSS project at the core of Safari.

So while the Android world appreciates your concern for their well being, you can relax in the comfort of knowing they use the same engine Safari uses, and will soon have the option of also using that engine in a browser that's five times more popular than Safari.
post #178 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Car analogies are like buses, you may despite them but another one will be along in a few minutes.

Another one won't be along soon if you live in L.A.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #179 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Do you honestly believe Android has no browser?

First, a brief reality check about Firefox:

May 2010
MSIE: 59.75%
Firefox: 24.32%
Chrome: 7.04%
Safari: 4.77%
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

Macs make up 5.4% of the computing market, so Safari's 4.77% means that a good many Mac folks don't even like it.

Meanwhile, Firefox is bundled only with Linux, and must be a conscious decision for anyone else to choose, download, and install, yet one of every four people on the web prefer it - five times as many as the OS-bundled Safari.

Besides, it's not like Android doesn't ship with a browser already.

And if you weren't aware that browser is based on WebKit. Yes, that WebKit, the same FOSS project at the core of Safari.

So while the Android world appreciates your concern for their well being, you can relax in the comfort of knowing they use the same engine Safari uses, and will soon have the option of also using that engine in a browser that's five times more popular than Safari.

Gotta love how you switch the topic from Mozilla lagging on releasing a proper mobile version of Firefox to implying I stated Android has no browser.

Then you follow up with Firefox having to be "consciously" installed, except for Linux, even though Firefox's marketshare and revenue comes almost entirely from those "conscious" efforts.

Then you follow up that, with erroneous stats about Mac marketshare, thus pulling even farther away from my original statement regarding Mozilla dropping the ball on the mobile browser front, the fastest growing segment and soon to be largest computing segment per unit by the time Android is expected to become the most common mobile OS on the market.

Are you going to now argue that Mozilla doesn't care about the ad revenue it could make from having a competent mobile browser?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #180 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Others, like Transforms, are still a working draft so they have browser-engine-specific suffixes which will fall off once they become RC.There is nothing stopping any future-forward developer from simply adding the simple text to make it work with the other browsers.

And therein lies the issue of transitioning away from Flash to JS/CSS/HTML5, developers have to sniff out the browsers and provide working content for each and every one of the popular ones. (BTW I believe you meant prefixes)

We have always had conditional browser code. Some people still insist on coding <noscript> even though .00001% people turn off JS these days.

For every browser that you want to target besides the one that has the best JS/CSS/HTML5 support means hours of extra coding and testing. it isn't so much about HTML 5 per se as it is about JS and CSS3 and the canvas tag, the later which isn't even part of HTML 5 but is the main area of interest in the discussion of replacing Flash.

Flash always worked the same in every browser for me. Sure the haters will say no it doesn't on a Mac, but I have never had any problem running Flash on any of my Macs so I will have to disagree with that argument. But there is no argument that developing equivalent functionality in JS/CSS/HTML5 takes waaaay longer and can't really achieve the same level of complexity either.

However that could be a good thing actually. I don't care how long it takes provided the client is willing to pay for my time. If they want JS/CSS/HTML5 and no Flash, I'm all for it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #181 of 320
No Apple does not own or control HTML5 in any way. The tools Apple are using are published and widely available for anyone to use. It's not Apple's fault if other browsers have not incorporated parts of HTML5 that Safari supports.

Here are links to other demonstrations of HTML5 that have nothing to do with Apple. These web developers are using the same tools Apple used. The only browser that can fully support all of these demonstrations is Safari. These functions are available to all of the other browsers.

HTML5 Demo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

And what's the point if the web page is still hard-coded to require Safari in order to view it? How will anyone know how well Chrome and Firefox support these functions if only Safari is allowed to view the page? Apple touts HTML 5 as being open to everyone. Apple does not own HTML 5, yet they are trying to act as the gatekeeper of who is worthy enough to be considered HTML 5 compliant. The best way for Apple to show the "openness" of HTML 5 and the capabilities of various browsers should be to let people view their web page in all browsers so they can make an informed judgement for themselves.
post #182 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

And therein lies the issue of transitioning away from Flash to JS/CSS/HTML5, developers have to sniff out the browsers and provide working content for each and every one of the popular ones. (BTW I believe you meant prefixes)

We have always had conditional browser code. Some people still insist on coding <noscript> even though .00001% people turn off JS these days.

For every browser that you want to target besides the one that has the best JS/CSS/HTML5 support means hours of extra coding and testing. it isn't so much about HTML 5 per se as it is about JS and CSS3 and the canvas tag, the later which isn't even part of HTML 5 but is the main area of interest in the discussion of replacing Flash.

Flash always worked the same in every browser for me. Sure the haters will say no it doesn't on a Mac, but I have never had any problem running Flash on any of my Macs so I will have to disagree with that argument. But there is no argument that developing equivalent functionality in JS/CSS/HTML5 takes waaaay longer and can't really achieve the same level of complexity either.

yup. I agree.

Quote:
However that could be a good thing actually. I don't care how long it takes provided the client is willing to pay for my time. If they want JS/CSS/HTML5 and no Flash, I'm all for it.

Yeah I'm always quite happy to quote on that when a client requests, and even the handful all freaked out by the hype who want alternate or replacement content for flash. 'yeah sure, I'll give ya a quote!' cha ching!
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #183 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

And therein lies the issue of transitioning away from Flash to JS/CSS/HTML5, developers have to sniff out the browsers and provide working content for each and every one of the popular ones. (BTW I believe you meant prefixes)

Yes, I meant prefixes. Thanks.

It's not so bad as having to sniff out the browser type, build and OS. With CSS you can just add the simple code to the file and the browser will pull the code it understands.

In HTML*:
Code:

<div id="cf">
. . . <img class="bottom" src="/tests/images/Stones.jpg" />
. . . <img class="top" src="/tests/images/Summit.jpg" />
</div>


Then the CSS*:
Code:

#cf {
. . . position:relative;
. . . height:281px;
. . . width:450px;
. . . margin:0 auto;
}
#cf img {
. . . position:absolute;
. . . left:0;
. . . -webkit-transition: opacity 1s ease-in-out;
. . . -moz-transition: opacity 1s ease-in-out;
. . . -o-transition: opacity 1s ease-in-out;
. . . transition: opacity 1s ease-in-out;
}

#cf img.top:hover {
. . . opacity:0;
}


Only those three lines in blue are needed until this become a release candidate, then line in red becomes standard. It's actually quite easy and not the issues you have to deal with in JS, especially in the past.


* Code borrowed from this site » http://css3.bradshawenterprises.com/
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #184 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yes, I meant prefixes. Thanks.

It's not so bad as having to sniff out the browser type, build and OS. With CSS you can just add the simple code to the file and the browser will pull the code it understands.]

Legacy browsers understand none of that code. If you don't want your client calling you up saying his main customer can't view the site, you had better build in ALL the contingencies.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #185 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Gotta love how you switch the topic from Mozilla lagging on releasing a proper mobile version of Firefox to implying I stated Android has no browser.

Then you follow up with Firefox having to be "consciously" installed, except for Linux, even though Firefox's marketshare and revenue comes almost entirely from those "conscious" efforts.

If you believe Linux has more users than Mac you're even more high than you sounded initially. While Linux dominates the server world, on the desktop it has only about half as many installs as OS X.

Most of Firefox's audience is on Windows, but a good many Mac users prefer it as well.

Quote:
Then you follow up that, with erroneous stats about Mac marketshare

Specifically how do you believe they are "erronous"?

You're welcome to provide links to any stats you feel are more reliable.

Do you prefer these?:

Firefox: 46.9%
Safari: 3.5%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Or these?

Firefox: 24.0%
Safari: 4.7%
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm


Or perhaps these?:

Firefox: 31.60%
Safari: 5.40%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...f_web_browsers


Quote:
... thus pulling even farther away from my original statement regarding Mozilla dropping the ball on the mobile browser front, the fastest growing segment and soon to be largest computing segment per unit by the time Android is expected to become the most common mobile OS on the market.

Are you going to now argue that Mozilla doesn't care about the ad revenue it could make from having a competent mobile browser?

Do you believe the world never made money on the Internet until Apple released their demo today?

And why do you imagine Mozilla.org's goals are the same as Apple's?

Android has a browser. It's doing fine. Mozilla will get around to delivering an extra browser for it whenever they please.

If this is important to you, being an open source project you're welcome to contribute.
post #186 of 320
For what's supposed to be a standard it seems rather odd you need to download a super niche browser to run it. Surely it should at least run in Chrome...!
post #187 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Before we argue this point, can you point me to where Apple claimed other browsers do not support these standards well enough?

First, I was responding to Maximara's statement "The other browsers don't support enough of the HTML5+CSS3+Javascript combo to fully show off what Apple wants to show."

Second, Apple states on:

http://www.apple.com/html5

"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."

They state it, but how do they back it up? What is the basis for comparison? Do we just take Apple's word? How can people test other browsers on Apple's web pages if they are intentionally blocked from those pages? And I am referring to the same web pages that Safari users would go to, without having to go through back doors, click on alternative links, switch user agent settings, or go to developer pages.
post #188 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Legacy browsers understand none of that code. If you don't want your client calling you up saying his main customer can't view the site, you had better build in ALL the contingencies.

Building to the least common denominator is a fool's errand. But that is besides the point, the point is that with CSS you can easily support multiple browsers with very little effort. The fact that supporting IE requires more work is not Apple, Google, W3C, or anyone else's fault but MS'. If you're implying that no CSS3 should be used despite the ease of coding until MS supports it then you are sadly mistaken.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #189 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Building to the least common denominator is a fool's errand. But that is besides the point, the point is that with CSS you can easily support multiple browsers with very little effort. The fact that supporting IE requires more work is not Apple, Google, W3C, or anyone else's fault but MS'. If you're implying that no CSS3 should be used despite the ease of coding until MS supports it then you are sadly mistaken.

Building so the widest audience can see it, is no fools errand, it's a requirement.

Work for any web development firm and you'll find this out in a heartbeat.

By the same token, any requirement to be target mobile, I'd never suggest a technology that isn't mature and widely accessible. (like flash...)
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #190 of 320
That's one way of looking at HTML5 development. You are right it will be more messy and disjointed on the desktop. But the desktop is not a future growth market.

Where HTML5 will shine and grow is in the mobile space where 100 million devices will be sold every quarter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

And therein lies the issue of transitioning away from Flash to JS/CSS/HTML5, developers have to sniff out the browsers and provide working content for each and every one of the popular ones.
post #191 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

How can people test other browsers on Apple's web pages if they are intentionally blocked from those pages?

Which browsers are being blocked from viewing Apple's web pages?
post #192 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Building so the widest audience can see it, is no fools errand, it's a requirement.

So if one person is using some archaic browser you say that you have to support it regardless of the financial viability? Then you and the company you work for are foolish. It's all about weighing the costs to profits so if you think that widest audience is more important than the profit one can gain from the added expense then you need to go back to school.

Even Google has dropped support for IE6 despite about 20% marketshare, and that's nothing to scoff at.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #193 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Building to the least common denominator is a fool's errand. But that is besides the point, the point is that with CSS you can easily support multiple browsers with very little effort. The fact that supporting IE requires more work is not Apple, Google, W3C, or anyone else's fault but MS'. If you're implying that no CSS3 should be used despite the ease of coding until MS supports it then you are sadly mistaken.

Not at all. I'm am only stating an opinion based on serving clients' web needs for over 15 years. If the client says he can't see his web page I don't tell him he is a fool for using IE. I build it so he doesn't complain, everyone else sees what they are capable of and I get a lot of satisfied customers, no complaints and mo' money. Sure I have to write the page several times with browser contingent code, but I can't live with the cop out of just a few simple CSS lines and call it a day. That's not going to cut it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #194 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So if one person is using some archaic browser you say that you have to support it regardless of the financially viability? Then you and the company you work for are foolish. It's all about weighing the costs to profits so of you think that widest audience is more important than the profit one can gain from the added expense then you need to go back to school.

Even Google has dropped support for IE6 despite about 20% marketshare, and that's nothing to scoff at.

no no, I'm not suggesting that at all. Although, I have had over the years, a few instances of the company president and his friends use 'X' and I had to ensure it worked, despite me trying to explain. It happened with ie mac 5.2 even though, even microsoft themselves publicly said don't use it, it's discontinued. It's amazing, what you will run into. Lunacy.

But sure, I don't think it's good practice to support ancient browsers, I think we finally have started to rid ourselves of ie 6 (choke) and I can dispense with using that annoying png hack...

I think it'll be like it always is, support will indeed happen, but each major browser will have something they dislike, and cumulatively there will be some annoying dumbing down, to a degree. How much, well, we'll see. Hopefully not too much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Not at all. I'm am only stating an opinion based on serving clients' web needs for over 15 years. If the client says he can't see his web page I don't tell him he is a fool for using IE. I build it so he doesn't complain, everyone else sees what they are capable of and I get a lot of satisfied customers, no complaints and mo' money. Sure I have to write the page several times with browser contingent code, but I can't live with the cop out of just a few simple CSS lines and call it a day. That's not going to cut it.

ah. Sounds like you been there when the top guy wants you to support some sh!tass browser we all dislike making for a crappy day (or10)...
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #195 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Which browsers are being blocked from viewing Apple's web pages?

See post #3.
post #196 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's one way of looking at HTML5 development. You are right it will be more messy and disjointed on the desktop. But the desktop is not a future growth market.

Where HTML5 will shine and grow is in the mobile space where 100 million devices will be sold every quarter.

Unfortunately none of those young up and coming mobile users are paying my invoices. I work in the medical research / scientific industry where Windows desktops are the rule. Time and time again I suggest that we build alternate content for mobile devices and it always gets shot down. "Sorry no budget for that". So I just do it anyway and they never know the difference. I don't mind, I just bury the cost into some other project and keep the customer satisfied. And even in the mobile space I have browser contingent code for IPhone and also iPad, (not the same), couple different flavors of BB and Android G1 and Droid. Not sure what other Androids I need to address at this time.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #197 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

First, I was responding to Maximara's statement "The other browsers don't support enough of the HTML5+CSS3+Javascript combo to fully show off what Apple wants to show."

Second, Apple states on:

http://www.apple.com/html5

"HTML5 Showcase

The demos below show how the latest version of Apples 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."

They state it, but how do they back it up? What is the basis for comparison? Do we just take Apple's word? How can people test other browsers on Apple's web pages if they are intentionally blocked from those pages? And I am referring to the same web pages that Safari users would go to, without having to go through back doors, click on alternative links, switch user agent settings, or go to developer pages.

For the billionth time, the point of apple is not to release demonstrations of html5 for every platform so browsers can be "tested" on how much of html5 they have implemented. The point is to show how a DEVELOPING standard can work really well in a browser that has SUFFICIENTLY IMPLEMENTED html5 functionality and thus show that it can work really well once finalized and implemented in a browser.

Your point is of course that apple should be proving a DEVELOPING standard they favour as problematic by virtue of releasing these demos on every legacy or non legacy browser that hasn't implemented html5 enough, so all the moron pundits can go, oh, let's stick to flash and trust in adobe for their plugins and forget about open standards and let's spent another 10 years stalling development for html5 so adobe can reign supreme with flash.

You 've been told off and yet you keep repeating the same straw man nonsense "argument"...just give it a rest.
post #198 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

For what's supposed to be a standard it seems rather odd you need to download a super niche browser to run it. Surely it should at least run in Chrome...!

HTML 5 is an emerging standard, but not all browsers support all the features. Apple's claim is that Safari supports all the latest HTML 5 features while other browsers do not. However, Apple provides no way for others to test that claim because other browsers are intentionally blocked from opening those HTML 5 pages. Instead, we are just supposed to take Apple's word for it.
post #199 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

HTML 5 is an emerging standard, but not all browsers support all the features. Apple's claim is that Safari supports all the latest HTML 5 features while other browsers do not. However, Apple provides no way for others to test that claim because other browsers are intentionally blocked from opening those HTML 5 pages. Instead, we are just supposed to take Apple's word for it.


McDonalds says their hamburgers are the tastiest, but they don't serve you a burger king as well just to make sure you agree. I know, enough with the burger analogies

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #200 of 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

HTML 5 is an emerging standard, but not all browsers support all the features. Apple's claim is that Safari supports all the latest HTML 5 features while other browsers do not. However, Apple provides no way for others to test that claim because other browsers are intentionally blocked from opening those HTML 5 pages. Instead, we are just supposed to take Apple's word for it.

no, other browsers aren't blocked to open that content
http://www.sunrisebrowser.com/
all of the demo works perfectly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5