111–120 of 137 posts
I don't really understand this claim: "Standards aren’t add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today." Standards should therefore be right there, sitting in you computer for someone to use them. Why do I have to download Safari then? I prefer to download a 2MB add-on than 30MB additional browser that I will never use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2022? Then those guys move too slow to be useful. Good on Jobs for trying to force it to move at a more reasonable pace. There is no reason to wait so long.
Sure, I agree that 2022 sounds absurdly conservative estimate. By then all browsers will support at least HTML8 :-P But my point was that giving impression that one company already has it all ready is stretching the truth as HTML5 is still a moving target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the demos only work in Safari. Even a nightly Chromium snapshot does not support everything that Safari does. I ran Chromium with my user agent set to Safari. And here's where it gets interesting. The demos that don't work in Chromium, notably the ones that require CSS 3D transforms, get removed from the listings on the pages that have them. So for example, the "Transitions" page, only the Dissolve, Toss, Sli…
What is the purpose of showing demos that work only on Safari? How can one call this a standard? Standards should work everywhere IMO. One of the many criterion I use to define a standard is that it is widely available. Right now, Flash is more a standard than HTML5 according to this criterion. Jobs is doing what Gates was doing - locking everyone on his platform. I don't know the stats but the Safari browser share i…
Wow. I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if Google released this with Chrome-only demos. Lots of praise about how Google's leading the way, pushing browsers forward, and you really ought to give Chrome a try. But when Apple does it? A barrage of complaints about how Apple doesn't support standards. It's laughable how transparently people are looking for something, anything to bitch about when it come…
Google has Chrome Experiments, open to everyone. Google gets kudos for letting everyone play with different browsers.
Apple has this demo, open to only Safari users. Apple gets the tut-tut'ing because it's not letting people decide for themselves.
Do you see the difference?
The propaganda and hypocriticism from Apple is staggering. (if you are going to downvote me, at least say why not)
I think the accusing party has to explain why something is hypocritical and propaganda.
Wow. I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if Google released this with Chrome-only demos. Lots of praise about how Google's leading the way, pushing browsers forward, and you really ought to give Chrome a try. But when Apple does it? A barrage of complaints about how Apple doesn't support standards. It's laughable how transparently people are looking for something, anything to bitch about when it come…
If they showed me a game with a background track and multiple layered, triggerable sounds (like just about any Flash game or iPhone game out there) I would have been a little more satisfied.
The gallery was also suprisingly sluggish on my core 2 quad machine with a somewhat super duper video card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much for "standard". I wouldn't have expected understanding of "open" from this company, anyway. Yesterday Flash was bad, but today it's fine to write websites that only work in Safari, while using some Apple-specific HTML/CSS-tags.
It's funny how many comments with the same opinion here get downvoted but no explanations why it's fine to add your own extensions to HTML/CSS (hello good old IE days). At least make your statements when downvoting so many people.
And there's the problem: you're complaining about what you think is a violation of the CSS spec by making a reference to a mechanism and practice that was deliberately baked into it.
The authors of the CSS spec specifically accommodated vendor-specific extensions to give browser authors a place to work on supporting emerging abilities that are still in a state of flux. It's a special namespace where features are allowed to incubate. When these relevant standards leave draft status and become 'candidate recommendations', then a simple change will allow browser vendors to support whatever CSS property syntax is approved. When this happens, updating content on the web is an extremely easy change. This mechanism allows browser vendors and spec writers to work concurrently without creating a mess.
So, it's kind of funny that you're complaining about this when Apple is actually doing the right thing according to the letter and spirit of the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords
Edit to head your next objection off at the pass: Yes, the spec also suggests that "authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions". This is a message to web developers, not browser developers. Apple does not want a web where every CSS file has "-webkit-" properties in it. They want these emerging standards to be ratified so that the vendor-specific properties can graduate to an official, approved syntax.
Scene graph engines are hard to build, much like vector graphics engines and font rendering engines.
That said, Clutter ToolKit (the same one Chrome OS is using for its windowing manager) is about the closest open source ready-to-go replacement that can do 80% of what is needed by WebKit to do CSS 3D on top of OpenGL. It's on Google's list to add to Chrome, but not for awhile.
Google seems to be favoring WebGL over CSS 3D (too much detail to discuss pros, cons, and the politics here), and is making WebGL implementation a higher priority for now.
Neat idea, very poor implementation. If you try to view the examples in Google Chrome, you'll get a notice that you have to download Safari ( http://skitch.com/bradgessler/dgw7p/apple-html5 ) This sets a very poor example for Apple supporting standards.
(navigator.userAgent.match(/Gecko\/(\d{4})/) || [0,2005])[1] < 2005) headers['Connection'] = 'close'