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.
They explain what is going on in each demo. You can find plenty of demos for other browsers.
The point of Apple's demos is to market Safari against other browsers, not market HTML5 and CSS3 against Flash.
Here is Apple's site that doesn't force Safari on you when Chrome will work fine, sans the 3D Transforms which only Safari currently uses..You can also change your UA to make other browsers work for some of the demos.
Then why do users of some other browsers get the message "You'll need to download Safari" when they click on those demos? What exactly are the criteria that Apple is using for which browser gets to view those pages?
I have no idea, and my first reaction was that it was really stupid of apple to showcase an open source specification that would only work in their browser (Safari) but this isn't the case at all
I doubt sunrise is affiliated with apple...in the code there's probably way to tell if a browser supports a certain feature or not...firefox or opera should take note of that feature because the demo doesn't work in either one (at least on my mac...)
sure. And just how many developers out there are churning it all out by the hundreds of thousands, -right now-?
All new technology started at some point with a lot of potential and a small user base. That alone does not determine what will be adopted and what won't.
Quote:
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.
I'm not sure what you mean in this comparison. HTML5 isn't in beta. The parts that have been ratified are all in working condition.
Quote:
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.
What are basing this prediction on? HTML5 is hear now, Flash for mobile is promised at some point in the future. I don't believe everyone is going to sit around waiting for Adobe to get its act together.
It sounds as if you work for a specific industry with a specific user base. The expectation for your work sounds very different from a web service for the general consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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.
You are placing the wrong emphasis on where the "improvement:" is happening. HTML5 is the web page instead of an addition to the web page. HTML5 is a leaner, lighter, fresher technology. That is the improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I hope and expect "the future" to be an improvement on the present. Not the same or worse.
The only demonstration that didn't work for me was the VR. A message said that I needed to have Safari AND Snow Leopard for it to work. I'm using a Mac Book with OS X 10.5.8 and the latest updates for Safari.
Even an Apple user couldn't view all of the demos using Apple software only a year old. I was a bit annoyed.
If Apple can't get all of the HTML 5 to work on a one and a half year old computer then it is really pushing things. I understand that HTML 5 is for the future, but Apple can't make the argument that it is a good thing today if it won't work on relatively new computers and other browsers.
Leopard is actually 2.5 years old now. HTML5 was barely supported back then. There may be some OS specific API's needed that were not built into Leopard. There are a lot of things in Mac OS native apps that are not supported in Leopard because it does not have the newest API's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
If Apple can't get all of the HTML 5 to work on a one and a half year old computer then it is really pushing things. I understand that HTML 5 is for the future, but Apple can't make the argument that it is a good thing today if it won't work on relatively new computers and other browsers.
This is completley wrong. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera all support HTML5. They just don't support all of the extensions that Safari supports.
Some of Apple's 'demos' use specific Webkit elements, not really anything HTML5 about that, other than the VR demo elememnts, which would probably get added to Chrome at some point later on.
It's about as fair and balanced as MS' HTML5 demos page, which uses specific elements to IE9. Yea.
And I don't plan on using Safari, as it has almost zero features, and it's poor, security wise. I'll wait until Google may or may not add this Webkit specfic elements to Chrome.
If all these demos were HTML5 exclusively, I wouldn't have to switch to another browser to use them (or like this morning, fuss around with the user agent). As far it remains, the Tron and VR demos don't work in Chrome. Boo.
And the biggest issue, is that on the Safari dev page, they list it as Safari technology demos, which is accurate, in order to get the best experience...but on the regular demo page, it's just "HTML5 and web standards". It's a bunch of BS.
From what can best be discerned without Apple's confirmation is that they used webkit extensions on features that are not fully ratified for HTML5. Apple wants the demos to work perfectly and Safari is the only browser they control. But Apple clearly states that this technology is intended for all browsers.
For example as you see in here Safari is the only browser that supports CSS 3D Transformations HTML5 & CSS3 READINESS. One of the major features used in Apple's demonstration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
Some of Apple's 'demos' use specific Webkit elements, not really anything HTML5 about that, other than the VR demo elememnts, which would probably get added to Chrome at some point later on.
From what can best be discerned without Apple's confirmation is that they used webkit extensions on features that are not fully ratified for HTML5. Apple wants the demos to work perfectly and Safari is the only browser they control. But Apple clearly states that this technology is intended for all browsers.
For example as you see in here Safari is the only browser that supports CSS 3D Transformations HTML5 & CSS3 READINESS. One of the major features used in Apple's demonstration.
I have to wonder if part of the heavy use of W3C's 3D Transforms is to get the other browser engines on-board with this great CSS option. Despite this being a working draft for over a year now and supported since Mobile Safari v3.1 and Safari v4.0, no one else but WebKit is supporting it. I'm not even sure how much Chrome, Android and other WebKit-based browsers support it, if at all.
Yes I do think its intention is to light some fires under some arses. Apple did indeed get their attention.
Opera Software man Haavard Moen is not amused. "When the page doesn't work in Opera or other browsers it isn't because these browsers don't support HTML5," he blogged. "It's because Apple uses browser sniffing and vendor prefixes, and in addition to that they aren't really testing a lot of HTML5 at all. Most of their demos seem to have got nothing to do with HTML5, as a matter of fact."
Mike Shaver, chief technology officer with Mozilla, the open-source operation that builds Safari-rival Firefox, was less diplomatic on Twitter. "Having difficulty suppressing my contempt for Apple's arrogant and ridiculous HTML5 positioning today," he said.
I can understand their being angry at Apple. But at the same time, its clearly known what your browser can support and what it can't. Webkit is clearly far beyond every other rendering engine in its support of HTML5 features.
I have the feeling the precedes something big for HTML5 at WWDC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I have to wonder if part of the heavy use of W3C's 3D Transforms is to get the other browser engines on-board with this great CSS option. Despite this being a working draft for over a year now and supported since Mobile Safari v3.1 and Safari v4.0, no one else but WebKit is supporting it. I'm not even sure how much Chrome, Android and other WebKit-based browsers support it, if at all.
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.
I don't know how you've managed that, but no matter what I do, I can't get that certainly not with no tabs with no flash running.
I have 4 flash sites running, and it varies from 15 to about 60ish % depending on if something intensive starts going. I can do the same thing with html5 animations pretty much. The other test machine with the newer 10.1 beta is far smoother and uses less cpu. Youtube vids run about 25-30ish %.
It'll be interesting once we get past the handful of 'experiment' sites and start seeing sites in full production with major multiple animations etc all going at once so we can finally compare.
Chrome was more recently updated with improvements to its rendering engine and added more HTML5 features. Safari hasn't had a major update since late 2009. If you run Safari using the Webkit nightly builds, the score should be quite different.
Browsers are constantly one upping each other as they update with more features. Which is ultimately a good thing for us all. Chrome still doesn't support 3D Transform which is used in Apple's HTML5 demo.
Comments
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.
They explain what is going on in each demo. You can find plenty of demos for other browsers.
The point of Apple's demos is to market Safari against other browsers, not market HTML5 and CSS3 against Flash.
Here is Apple's site that doesn't force Safari on you when Chrome will work fine, sans the 3D Transforms which only Safari currently uses..You can also change your UA to make other browsers work for some of the demos.
Then why do users of some other browsers get the message "You'll need to download Safari" when they click on those demos? What exactly are the criteria that Apple is using for which browser gets to view those pages?
I have no idea, and my first reaction was that it was really stupid of apple to showcase an open source specification that would only work in their browser (Safari) but this isn't the case at all
I doubt sunrise is affiliated with apple...in the code there's probably way to tell if a browser supports a certain feature or not...firefox or opera should take note of that feature because the demo doesn't work in either one (at least on my mac...)
sure. And just how many developers out there are churning it all out by the hundreds of thousands, -right now-?
All new technology started at some point with a lot of potential and a small user base. That alone does not determine what will be adopted and what won't.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean in this comparison. HTML5 isn't in beta. The parts that have been ratified are all in working condition.
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.
What are basing this prediction on? HTML5 is hear now, Flash for mobile is promised at some point in the future. I don't believe everyone is going to sit around waiting for Adobe to get its act together.
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.
I hope and expect "the future" to be an improvement on the present. Not the same or worse.
Even an Apple user couldn't view all of the demos using Apple software only a year old. I was a bit annoyed.
If Apple can't get all of the HTML 5 to work on a one and a half year old computer then it is really pushing things. I understand that HTML 5 is for the future, but Apple can't make the argument that it is a good thing today if it won't work on relatively new computers and other browsers.
If Apple can't get all of the HTML 5 to work on a one and a half year old computer then it is really pushing things. I understand that HTML 5 is for the future, but Apple can't make the argument that it is a good thing today if it won't work on relatively new computers and other browsers.
This is completley wrong. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera all support HTML5. They just don't support all of the extensions that Safari supports.
Some of Apple's 'demos' use specific Webkit elements, not really anything HTML5 about that, other than the VR demo elememnts, which would probably get added to Chrome at some point later on.
It's about as fair and balanced as MS' HTML5 demos page, which uses specific elements to IE9. Yea.
And I don't plan on using Safari, as it has almost zero features, and it's poor, security wise. I'll wait until Google may or may not add this Webkit specfic elements to Chrome.
If all these demos were HTML5 exclusively, I wouldn't have to switch to another browser to use them (or like this morning, fuss around with the user agent). As far it remains, the Tron and VR demos don't work in Chrome. Boo.
And the biggest issue, is that on the Safari dev page, they list it as Safari technology demos, which is accurate, in order to get the best experience...but on the regular demo page, it's just "HTML5 and web standards". It's a bunch of BS.
For example as you see in here Safari is the only browser that supports CSS 3D Transformations HTML5 & CSS3 READINESS. One of the major features used in Apple's demonstration.
Some of Apple's 'demos' use specific Webkit elements, not really anything HTML5 about that, other than the VR demo elememnts, which would probably get added to Chrome at some point later on.
From what can best be discerned without Apple's confirmation is that they used webkit extensions on features that are not fully ratified for HTML5. Apple wants the demos to work perfectly and Safari is the only browser they control. But Apple clearly states that this technology is intended for all browsers.
For example as you see in here Safari is the only browser that supports CSS 3D Transformations HTML5 & CSS3 READINESS. One of the major features used in Apple's demonstration.
I have to wonder if part of the heavy use of W3C's 3D Transforms is to get the other browser engines on-board with this great CSS option. Despite this being a working draft for over a year now and supported since Mobile Safari v3.1 and Safari v4.0, no one else but WebKit is supporting it. I'm not even sure how much Chrome, Android and other WebKit-based browsers support it, if at all.
Opera Software man Haavard Moen is not amused. "When the page doesn't work in Opera or other browsers it isn't because these browsers don't support HTML5," he blogged. "It's because Apple uses browser sniffing and vendor prefixes, and in addition to that they aren't really testing a lot of HTML5 at all. Most of their demos seem to have got nothing to do with HTML5, as a matter of fact."
Mike Shaver, chief technology officer with Mozilla, the open-source operation that builds Safari-rival Firefox, was less diplomatic on Twitter. "Having difficulty suppressing my contempt for Apple's arrogant and ridiculous HTML5 positioning today," he said.
I can understand their being angry at Apple. But at the same time, its clearly known what your browser can support and what it can't. Webkit is clearly far beyond every other rendering engine in its support of HTML5 features.
I have the feeling the precedes something big for HTML5 at WWDC.
I have to wonder if part of the heavy use of W3C's 3D Transforms is to get the other browser engines on-board with this great CSS option. Despite this being a working draft for over a year now and supported since Mobile Safari v3.1 and Safari v4.0, no one else but WebKit is supporting it. I'm not even sure how much Chrome, Android and other WebKit-based browsers support it, if at all.
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.
From Main, you Spring to Broadway... then over the Hill to Olive... oh, isn't it Grand to Hope to find a Flower on Figurora?
Desde El Pueblito de Nuestra Señorita la Reina de los Angeles del RÃ*o de Porciúncula.
.
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.
On a iMac 24 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM
No windows or tabs open running Flash!
.
On a iMac 24 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM
No windows or tabs open running Flash!
.
Looks like you have a computer. Nothing else can be discerned from your post.
I have 4 flash sites running, and it varies from 15 to about 60ish % depending on if something intensive starts going. I can do the same thing with html5 animations pretty much. The other test machine with the newer 10.1 beta is far smoother and uses less cpu. Youtube vids run about 25-30ish %.
It'll be interesting once we get past the handful of 'experiment' sites and start seeing sites in full production with major multiple animations etc all going at once so we can finally compare.
The gallery works because it's simply photos but not the video.
shame shame
not to mention the controls look like kindergarten buttons.
EDIT: Quit safari, now my fans stopped.
Wow I'm on a Macbook / Safari and the Tron video won't even play. Spinning beach ball. And now the fans are starting as if the video was like Flash
The gallery works because it's simply photos but not the video.
shame shame
not to mention the controls look like kindergarten buttons.
EDIT: Quit safari, now my fans stopped.
That's strange, because my "crippled" iPad handles it like a champ.
http://html5test.com
Chrome: 142/160
Safari: 113/160.
(@foad who said Chrome is behind Safari for having html5 support)
And requiring a quicktime plugin?
Apple just lost the moral high ground in the crusade against proprietary flash. :P
Browsers are constantly one upping each other as they update with more features. Which is ultimately a good thing for us all. Chrome still doesn't support 3D Transform which is used in Apple's HTML5 demo.
This is fail.
http://html5test.com
Chrome: 142/160
Safari: 113/160.
(@foad who said Chrome is behind Safari for having html5 support)
Apple just lost the moral high ground in the crusade against proprietary flash. :P