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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
I hope and expect "the future" to be an improvement on the present. Not the same or worse.
Amen to this, I certainly agree.
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.
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.
I think you figured out who at Apple posted the page!
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...
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
Please enough with the car analogies
Car analogies are like buses, another one will be along in a few minutes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.