Adobe working to sabotage HTML5

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post


    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 share your longing for a pro version of iWeb. It would be a grand thing. As Frank777 wrote elsewhere, "No one has really come up with a professional level easy-to-use web site builder. The iPhone, iPod Touch, Tablet/iSlate thing and Safari on Mac all cry out for an easy-to-use web authoring environment for consumers and prosumers. And Apple seems to hate Flash and embraces HTML5, so there's one more reason to run over Dreamweaver with an Apple-built solution. Can Apple take the iWeb philosophy upmarket? I have no idea."



    As to Pixelmator slaying Photoshop and Pages usurping the throne of InDesign, my own view is that such thinking is oversimplified, but competition won't hurt.
  • Reply 62 of 181
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Just like Microsoft in the old days...
  • Reply 63 of 181
    Incompetent fools. Adobe is dead to me!
  • Reply 64 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    so they're morally wrong but we shouldn't denounce them? What? Why don't I understand? Oh! Because that doesn't make sense.



    You know, like not denouncing Republicans for abusing the filibuster.
  • Reply 65 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shelleyp View Post


    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.



    AppleInsider never let facts get in the way of a good innuendo-filled rumor. One of these days they will likely be sued into non-existence by an offended party... which would make all the kids cry. \
  • Reply 66 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    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?



    snopes.com is a rumor site, except that it's focused on debunking false rumors, or verifying those that are true. There's value in posting rumors, but there's also a potentially larger value in providing the facts that either underlie the rumor, or that refute it.



    Then there's also common sense. Let's look at the scenario being proposed in this rumor:



    Adobe, a company largely dependent on the good will of web developers, designers, and the like, indulges in nefarious backdoor skullduggery with the W3C, which is also dependent on the good will and trust of web designers, developers, and the like -- just to kill HTML5 and/or the Canvas element. Kill Canvas, an element which already has broad adoption and use. Why? Because, the implication is, Adobe is "afraid" that people will stop using Flash in--how long will it be before Flash isn't really needed? Ten years? More?



    When a rumor isn't based on anything that remotely resembles reality, why believe it? Why accept, at face value, the unbelievable and the absurd?
  • Reply 67 of 181
    Flash is on life support and the lack of support in Windows mobile 7 is just another nail in the coffin for the bloated garbage that is flash.



    Actually, I am stunned that even msft was smart enough to get off of the sinking ship that is flash.



    http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/06/r...wc-launch-zun/
  • Reply 68 of 181
    Holy disappearing comments, Batman!



    Mods: If you're going to delete something, send a PM.
  • Reply 69 of 181
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Holy disappearing comments, Batman!



    Mods: If you're going to delete something, send a PM.



    Sorry, PMs just aren't practical when there were half a dozen or more posters in question. I tend to err towards keeping things in the open if anything.



    My message was here:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=46



    The posts aren't hard deleted, you can click "view post" if you must, but continuing a political discussion is off topic and inappropriate except in political outsider.
  • Reply 70 of 181
    Neither I nor Adobe oppose, are trying to sabotage, stop, slow down, hinder, or harm HTML5, Canvas 2D Graphics, Microdata, video in HTML, or any of the other significant features in HTML5.



    No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, "blocked" in the W3C HTML Working Group -- not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata -- not by me, not by Adobe.



    Claims otherwise are false. Any other disclaimers needed?



    There are some things that are wrong with the spec I'd like to see fixed. There are some things that are really, really, wrong with the process that I'd like to improve.



    I've been working on web standards since the beginning of the web in the early 90s, and standards for even longer; long before I joined Adobe. My opinions don't come from Adobe, and I don't get approval or direction. I hate to see decades of work on web architecture messed up in the short-term interest of grabbing control of the web platform for a few vendors to own.



    As for the HTML standards process: I've worked in scores of standards groups in IETF and W3C, as well as a few others here and there, and I've never seen anything as bad as this one, with people abusing their official positions to grandstand and promote proprietary advantage. I've blogged some about this, but I'd rather fix things along.



    I think progress of HTML5 in W3C could be faster if the subsections on graphics and metadata could (if not now, then eventually) be moved to separate subgroups focused on those topics. Several parts of what is generally known as HTML5 are already handed separate groups, such as W3C WebApps, GeoLocation, DAP, and CSS groups.



    The documents are already published, at WHATWG and as Editor's Draft. The question was about taking a snapshot of the published Editor's Draft and marking them "Working Draft". The organization of work in W3C is determined by the "charters" of working group and the "scope" of he charters. Saying some documents are "out of scope" for one group means you might move the work to another group, or might just rewrite the "Status of This Document" section of them to say that they might move later. Working group's publish documents that are "out of scope" all the time, they just don't claim otherwise in their Status section. So changing the Status section what I was asking for, in the somewhat stilted language of "objection".



    If you want to know who is sending in technical objections, you can see the working group mailing list at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/. And if you want to see more of my opinions, I'm also on the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) and post there a lot, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/; the TAG often discusses HTML5.



    Any more questions about my opinion? My email address should be easy to find.
  • Reply 71 of 181
    Thanks for the links, they prove to support your point..

    All I can say it is obvious for me that Adobe no matter what will try to fight HTML5 cause it simply offers an alternative and it is open that in the end equals unlimited resources to expand, grow and mature in the market. Personally I welcomed HTML5 on YouTube, now I can watch a lot of videos quicker than I used with flash.

    That makes me thing that at least there is a brighter and faster future for web browsing



    Adobe can say all they want but they got hurt with Apple not embracing flash in their mobile devices, Apple will say that the user experience and performance of the device will be poor using flash. The fact that they don't support FLASH and align all those product with HTML5 is no biggie. What Adobe fears is the trend that comes behind Apple steps, wont be the first time others follow Apple and that... menace Flash market.
  • Reply 72 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Takeo View Post


    Flash developers are not web designers. Web designers would never develop an all Flash site.



    Some designers do design only, while some can design AND develop Flash. For those who can't, they simply hire a developer to work with. So, yes, web designers have developed all-Flash sites, including myself and other designers I know, mainly because at the time, some things Flash offered couldn't be done any other way. It doesn't mean it was fun though! ...Flash had it's day... Looking forward to seeing what HTML5 does.
  • Reply 73 of 181
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Saw headline, instantly knew who the author would be.
  • Reply 74 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    If this is true, they're the new Microsoft. If I were a web designer I would just hate them so much now.



    Yes.



    Hello Micro$oft, hello A$obe.



    But HOW will they be able to "sabotage" HTML5? They´ll be completely outside the team, if HTML5 will be standardized by the www-masters over the years (though).
  • Reply 75 of 181
    icyfogicyfog Posts: 338member
    Wow, I wouldn't have thought that Adobe would become the new Microsoft.
  • Reply 76 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    This isn't MacRumors, 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.



    No this isn't MacRumours, it's an(other) AppleInsider post where the very basic facts have been called into question. Can you, in turn, drop the inter-board politics? Not very professional, IMO.
  • Reply 77 of 181
    What's their problem.



    Can't they just change the export format of Flash Studio to HTML5 + js.



    Bam, problem solved.
  • Reply 78 of 181
    I'm no great Adobe lover but this article is garbage.



    First off the guy's name is Ian Hickson nor "Ian Hixie." Hixie is a nickname for him but any half invested journalist would be able to figure that out.



    And to top that off... Hixie isn't "a member of the html 5 working group" he's basically the guy in charge. That alone should tell you the writer didn't even try.



    From there the writer just simply jumps to speculation that since Adobe's complaint is not public that they must be evil! This article is just full of half stated statements and unfounded ideas. It amounts to little more than caveman type speech of "Adobe mad Flash not on iPhone. ARGG! Adobe hate canvas. Adobe smash!" and offers nothing more than useless, unfounded conjecture.



    Give me a break. I hate Flash and want it dead but i've seen better articles written by 6th graders. This doesn't have sources it only makes assumptions. I've come to expect better of this site. I am sorely disappointed.
  • Reply 79 of 181
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 278member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post


    Down with Flash! Buggy, a doorway for malware, resource hog, and buggy. Oh, did I say buggy twice?



    Nope. Three times
  • Reply 80 of 181
    doxxicdoxxic Posts: 100member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    so they're morally wrong but we shouldn't denounce them? What? Why don't I understand? Oh! Because that doesn't make sense.



    Because that's a waste of energy. Fix the process. ktappe has a very good point.
Sign In or Register to comment.