No they do not. We're all too familiar with flash. If they're transitioning from flash, highlight the alternative. Show us what the future holds.
What? It would be a great idea to show html5 doing what flash does. The other stuff it does that flash can't aren't really the major selling points. The major selling point for html5 is "it can do what flash can do, for free."
So yes, showing a flash site compared to an html5 site, all doing the same exact thing, is a great way to push html5's capability.
Wow, I hope I'm not offending you by saying this (like maybe it's your friend's site or something) but that has got to be the most annoying looking webpage I've ever come across.
What? It would be a great idea to show html5 doing what flash does. The other stuff it does that flash can't aren't really the major selling points. The major selling point for html5 is "it can do what flash can do, for free."
So yes, showing a flash site compared to an html5 site, all doing the same exact thing, is a great way to push html5's capability.
Exactly. Frankly, the HTML5 version of YouTube is not as fully featured as the Flash version, for example. Please Apple, show us some world-class HTML5 going head-to-head with Flash. Side by side comparison.
Wow, I hope I'm not offending you by saying this (like maybe it's your friend's site or something) but that has got to be the most annoying looking webpage I've ever come across.
Exactly. Frankly, the HTML5 version of YouTube is not as fully featured as the Flash version, for example. Please Apple, show us some world-class HTML5 going head-to-head with Flash. Side by side comparison.
Even if someone did do that, the user doesn't have any idea how hard it was to do. A developer having to write in pure js code with no timeline GUI can expect to spend at least triple the time required to do it with Flash. So sure it is great for the end user who can't handle Flash but the poor developer is not going to get much sleep.
Geez again, why do people continue to make this already answered, already thwarted point..
They are demoing the FUTURE of ALL the aspects HTML5 can bring. The point is to try and get all the developers and then of course all the other browser platforms on board. If they all had it it wouldn't be the future, nor would there be a point of a DEMO.
If you opened up chrome and the demo worked perfectly fine, it would then be pointless cause you already have everything they are trying to demo.
Did anyone else not notice from the heading "Developers: Learn how to do it yourself" that this demo is for.. I dunno.. Developers, and not consumers who happen to be browsing at that moment. Clearly anyone who develops websites would already have every major browser already so they can test their site's compatability and would never see that error message.
Please, for anyone else who's thinking about making this arguement woul you please just say it over in your head a few times first until you realize what your actually saying?? "Geez, you'd think if they wanted to show people all these great features of HTML5 that firefox, chrome, and opera don't fully support yet, you'd think they would at least make it work on firefox, chrome, and opera!!"
I think it (the argument) is being rehashed over and over because of this quote written on Apple's html5 page:
"Standards aren’t add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today."
That gives the impression to non-technical people, or those who don't give a damn how the web works, that this standard is complete and ready to go for everyone; Not the case, however.
As for the animations they seemed fine to me. I've rarely been to a website that actually uses the Flash for anything other than video and ads. When I do visit one, they usually abuse it.
You can relax. It'll be finished soon enough, and thousands are using it now.
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.
Even if someone did do that, the user doesn't have any idea how hard it was to do. A developer having to write in pure js code with no timeline GUI can expect to spend at least triple the time required to do it with Flash. So sure it is great for the end user who can't handle Flash but the poor developer is not going to get much sleep.
So that seems to be an argument that Flash is superior for developers, even though it's still no panacea for browsers.
Wow, I hope I'm not offending you by saying this (like maybe it's your friend's site or something) but that has got to be the most annoying looking webpage I've ever come across.
That is M.I.A.'s (the musician) site. She performed on the Grammy's two years ago the song Paper Planes from the soundtrack of Slumdog Millionaire.
I tried out all those demos on my iPad. Some had quite sluggish controls and felt very desktop-ish in their GUI design.
Overall I was impressed with what HTML can do now but it's not yet up to the standard of Cocoa Touch/Core Animation, and something tells me the underlying code is a lot messier.
These tools are not proprietary to Safari, they are open standards. The only reason this requires Safari is because Safari supports it and no one else does yet.
Yeah I hear "it's gonna' be great.
One side yelling that flash is always "gonna", when html5 is the same.
I don't see much in these demoes that was basic stuff a decade. And this is the flash killer?
Sorry guys, but I see this thread is a tad much ado about nothing.
First of all very soon all browsers will adopt htlml5 with more and more features, because no one want's to be left out of the future, ie has already publicly stated their support, and so have opera, and firefox. I don't care about chrome.
Secondly, in terms of adoption, I don't see any problem when for years we've been pestered about downloading the latest flash plugin to run flash, it will be very easy on all browsers to prompt the user to update informing them that they might not be able to view the latest standards otherwise. Ff, opera, and safari automatically prompt for updates. So, I don't see why anyone even in the legacy machine(well, not on the lisa...) will be left.
so, like I said, much ado about nothing, apple released some demonstration of features for developers to spread the word about html5 and advance its use. The point is to show where technology is heading, not were it is or has been.
Sorry guys, but I see this thread is a tad much ado about nothing.
First of all very soon all browsers will adopt htlml5 with more and more features, because no one want's to be left out of the future, ie has already publicly stated their support, and so have opera, and firefox. I don't care about chrome.
Secondly, in terms of adoption, I don't see any problem when for years we've been pestered about downloading the latest flash plugin to run flash, it will be very easy on all browsers to prompt the user to update informing them that they might not be able to view the latest standards otherwise. Ff, opera, and safari automatically prompt for updates. So, I don't see why anyone even in the legacy machine(well, not on the lisa...) will be left.
so, like I said, much ado about nothing, apple released some demonstration of features for developers to spread the word about html5 and advance its use. The point is to show where technology is heading, not were it is or has been.
I agree. The whole look you need safari har har har thing is just as dumb as the it's a flash killer nonsense.
It is what it is, and believe me web developers are happy to see new features added to html and css. Yes there will be a number of simpler things we'd use flash for, that we won't anymore.
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.
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.
Comments
No they do not. We're all too familiar with flash. If they're transitioning from flash, highlight the alternative. Show us what the future holds.
What? It would be a great idea to show html5 doing what flash does. The other stuff it does that flash can't aren't really the major selling points. The major selling point for html5 is "it can do what flash can do, for free."
So yes, showing a flash site compared to an html5 site, all doing the same exact thing, is a great way to push html5's capability.
Example: http://www.neetrecordings.com/
Wow, I hope I'm not offending you by saying this (like maybe it's your friend's site or something) but that has got to be the most annoying looking webpage I've ever come across.
No they do not. We're all too familiar with flash. If they're transitioning from flash, highlight the alternative. Show us what the future holds.
I hope and expect "the future" to be an improvement on the present. Not the same or worse.
What? It would be a great idea to show html5 doing what flash does. The other stuff it does that flash can't aren't really the major selling points. The major selling point for html5 is "it can do what flash can do, for free."
So yes, showing a flash site compared to an html5 site, all doing the same exact thing, is a great way to push html5's capability.
Exactly. Frankly, the HTML5 version of YouTube is not as fully featured as the Flash version, for example. Please Apple, show us some world-class HTML5 going head-to-head with Flash. Side by side comparison.
Wow, I hope I'm not offending you by saying this (like maybe it's your friend's site or something) but that has got to be the most annoying looking webpage I've ever come across.
Believe it or not, that might offend him.
Exactly. Frankly, the HTML5 version of YouTube is not as fully featured as the Flash version, for example. Please Apple, show us some world-class HTML5 going head-to-head with Flash. Side by side comparison.
Even if someone did do that, the user doesn't have any idea how hard it was to do. A developer having to write in pure js code with no timeline GUI can expect to spend at least triple the time required to do it with Flash. So sure it is great for the end user who can't handle Flash but the poor developer is not going to get much sleep.
Geez again, why do people continue to make this already answered, already thwarted point..
They are demoing the FUTURE of ALL the aspects HTML5 can bring. The point is to try and get all the developers and then of course all the other browser platforms on board. If they all had it it wouldn't be the future, nor would there be a point of a DEMO.
If you opened up chrome and the demo worked perfectly fine, it would then be pointless cause you already have everything they are trying to demo.
Did anyone else not notice from the heading "Developers: Learn how to do it yourself" that this demo is for.. I dunno.. Developers, and not consumers who happen to be browsing at that moment. Clearly anyone who develops websites would already have every major browser already so they can test their site's compatability and would never see that error message.
Please, for anyone else who's thinking about making this arguement woul you please just say it over in your head a few times first until you realize what your actually saying?? "Geez, you'd think if they wanted to show people all these great features of HTML5 that firefox, chrome, and opera don't fully support yet, you'd think they would at least make it work on firefox, chrome, and opera!!"
I think it (the argument) is being rehashed over and over because of this quote written on Apple's html5 page:
"Standards aren’t add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today."
That gives the impression to non-technical people, or those who don't give a damn how the web works, that this standard is complete and ready to go for everyone; Not the case, however.
As for the animations they seemed fine to me. I've rarely been to a website that actually uses the Flash for anything other than video and ads. When I do visit one, they usually abuse it.
Example: http://www.neetrecordings.com/
all I get is an install flash icon. glad i'm not using my computer.
"Can't"?
Pre-Alpha was delivered more than a month ago:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Firef...ile+on+Android
You can relax. It'll be finished soon enough, and thousands are using it now.
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.
Even if someone did do that, the user doesn't have any idea how hard it was to do. A developer having to write in pure js code with no timeline GUI can expect to spend at least triple the time required to do it with Flash. So sure it is great for the end user who can't handle Flash but the poor developer is not going to get much sleep.
So that seems to be an argument that Flash is superior for developers, even though it's still no panacea for browsers.
Wow, I hope I'm not offending you by saying this (like maybe it's your friend's site or something) but that has got to be the most annoying looking webpage I've ever come across.
That is M.I.A.'s (the musician) site. She performed on the Grammy's two years ago the song Paper Planes from the soundtrack of Slumdog Millionaire.
Overall I was impressed with what HTML can do now but it's not yet up to the standard of Cocoa Touch/Core Animation, and something tells me the underlying code is a lot messier.
Entirely wrong interpretation of the situation.
These tools are not proprietary to Safari, they are open standards. The only reason this requires Safari is because Safari supports it and no one else does yet.
Yeah I hear "it's gonna' be great.
One side yelling that flash is always "gonna", when html5 is the same.
I don't see much in these demoes that was basic stuff a decade. And this is the flash killer?
Idiots.
Yeah I hear "it's gonna' be great.
One side yelling that flash is always "gonna", when html5 is the same.
I don't see much in these demoes that was basic stuff a decade. And this is the flash killer?
Idiots.
Idiots.
Hey hey hey. We're all geniuses here.
First of all very soon all browsers will adopt htlml5 with more and more features, because no one want's to be left out of the future, ie has already publicly stated their support, and so have opera, and firefox. I don't care about chrome.
Secondly, in terms of adoption, I don't see any problem when for years we've been pestered about downloading the latest flash plugin to run flash, it will be very easy on all browsers to prompt the user to update informing them that they might not be able to view the latest standards otherwise. Ff, opera, and safari automatically prompt for updates. So, I don't see why anyone even in the legacy machine(well, not on the lisa...) will be left.
so, like I said, much ado about nothing, apple released some demonstration of features for developers to spread the word about html5 and advance its use. The point is to show where technology is heading, not were it is or has been.
Hey hey hey. We're all geniuses here.
I see that.
Sorry guys, but I see this thread is a tad much ado about nothing.
First of all very soon all browsers will adopt htlml5 with more and more features, because no one want's to be left out of the future, ie has already publicly stated their support, and so have opera, and firefox. I don't care about chrome.
Secondly, in terms of adoption, I don't see any problem when for years we've been pestered about downloading the latest flash plugin to run flash, it will be very easy on all browsers to prompt the user to update informing them that they might not be able to view the latest standards otherwise. Ff, opera, and safari automatically prompt for updates. So, I don't see why anyone even in the legacy machine(well, not on the lisa...) will be left.
so, like I said, much ado about nothing, apple released some demonstration of features for developers to spread the word about html5 and advance its use. The point is to show where technology is heading, not were it is or has been.
I agree. The whole look you need safari har har har thing is just as dumb as the it's a flash killer nonsense.
It is what it is, and believe me web developers are happy to see new features added to html and css. Yes there will be a number of simpler things we'd use flash for, that we won't anymore.
Yeah I hear "it's gonna' be great.
I don't see much in these demoes that was basic stuff a decade. And this is the flash killer?
Idiots.
http://html5readiness.com/
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.