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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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...!
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."
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.
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.
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...)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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)...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
Comments
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.
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!
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*:
<div id="cf">
. . . <img class="bottom" src="/tests/images/Stones.jpg" />
. . . <img class="top" src="/tests/images/Summit.jpg" />
</div>
Then the CSS*:
#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/
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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.
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.
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...)
Where HTML5 will shine and grow is in the mobile space where 100 million devices will be sold every quarter.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)...
Which browsers are being blocked from viewing Apple's web pages?
See post #3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
no, other browsers aren't blocked to open that content
http://www.sunrisebrowser.com/
all of the demo works perfectly
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?