×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scribd Switches To HTML5

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the let-a-thousand-documents-bloom dept.

Media 177

drfreak writes "This story from OSNews describes Scribd, a site for uploading and reading documents, switching from Flash to HTML5. The major reason for the decision was that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality, so they saw no point in using Flash any more. The big improvement in the rollout is that documents are now first-class citizens of HTML and no longer need to sit in a Flash 'window.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

177 comments

Wow (5, Insightful)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 3 years ago | (#32122866)

Completely blank page (scribd) until I enabled flash. I can't stand sites that have the most basic shit (plain text, etc) in flash. How is that even necessary? Good move getting off that Flash addiction.

Re:Wow (5, Interesting)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123548)

Right on. Scribd has traditionally been a candidate for the worst designed site on the Internet managing to combine flash abuse, baffling layout, slow response, and wretched human factors in one tidy package. I started avoiding Scribd links months ago.

The bright side. I don't see how HTML5 could possibly make it any worse.

Re:Wow (0)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123740)

> Scribd has traditionally been a candidate for the worst designed site on the Internet

Worse than StackOverflow? That requires Javascript, for some reason, and the screen is just littered with meaningless blobs, arrows and other images. Slashdot doesn't have any of that (well, something like 2% of it) nor does it require javascript.

Re:Wow (1)

Schoinobates Volans (443594) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123854)

You must be mistaken: I turned JavaScript off and I could still browse StackOverflow without any trouble. Just could not vote a question or answer up or down.

Re:Wow (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123960)

I don't actually find StackOverflow (or the other sites powered by their engine) to be very bad at all. The javascript is for voting/posting without refresh. I haven't noticed any "meaningless blobs/arrows/etc" on their sites either.

Re:Wow (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32124070)

I second that. SO design is very clean and readable, imho.

As for Javascript, it's true they could offer a fallback for those actions, but its use is justified.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32124272)

> that requires javascrip

welcome to 1995, please leave netscape at the doorstep.

also, you're complaining about a site that works perfectly fine without javascript - you're not making any sense.

Re:Wow (4, Funny)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123624)

How is that even necessary? Good move getting off that Flash addiction.

stage 1) We can quit any time we want too. You just don't understand. It makes us feel ways about things. We can't sleep without it. Its only for recreation. The chicks dig it. Everyone is doing it, and there is no proof.

stage 2) We can't take our life anymore! You have taken everything away from us! You have no right!

stage 3) So whats with this "alternative"? Does it do the same thing for us? Without the stigma?

stage 4) See my yard? Ya I got that pool with my own money. They tell me I was talking about myself in the plural form and stuff. I was on Flash. Ya, they have me on HTML5 now, I am feeling better, no longer have the iphone fits I used to have and my job got better. I don't crash as often on my new meds.

stage 5) Flash was retarded.

I am not sure why I felt the need to act that whole thing out, but your better for having read it. Congratulations.

--Dilvish

Much better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32122896)

The HTML5 viewer on their site works great

Scribd in HTML5 (5, Informative)

noackjr (541550) | more than 3 years ago | (#32122908)

HTML5 may be the wave of the future, but.. (4, Funny)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123080)

Heh. If you get to the end of the high quality introduction, you're presented with a link to the people that drew all of the images:

http://www.specialagentproductions.com/ [specialage...ctions.com]

Yeah, their site doesn't work unless you enable Flash. Pretty funny after the whole "get rid of proprietary formats" and "free your documents online" thing...

Re:Scribd in HTML5 (2, Interesting)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123358)

I have noscript, when I ~allow~ (whitelist) their site, the images disappear along with most of the functionality, blank page for the most part?!. Turn off scripts and it seems to work fine. Maybe it's just my borked up firefox, but if this is the way it was intended, then I'll actually start looking at their site far more - If I see a site in flash I tend to go elsewhere. : ) Very nice change.

Re:Scribd in HTML5 (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123928)

LOL: "All the major ones now support @font-face and Canvas/VML. In fact, 97% of browsers (including IE!) support web fonts." How's that for a vote of confidence in IE :)

why was it flash in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32122912)

It was plain text and pdf files, what was wrong with regular html and pdf? I thought the flash crap was a scam to make you sign up for an account if you wanted to download the document instead of just view it youtube-style.

Re:why was it flash in the first place? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32122940)

Near as I can tell, they thought keeping fonts the same as an original doc was important, and browsers didn't used to be able to handle downloading fonts.

Re:why was it flash in the first place? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123792)

Near as I can tell, they thought keeping fonts the same as an original doc was important, and browsers didn't used to be able to handle downloading fonts.

So they could have had a non-Flash site with links to pdf versions of the documents for people who were that bothered about fonts.

So What? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32122926)

Ok, great.

This is a story targeted at the hardcore Apple Hipster Douchebags out there who are lapping up Jobs talking points about Adobe and his war to keep developers locked into Apple products.

What the hell does some random site changing browser tech have to do with the rest of the 97 percent of the computing world that doesn't give a damn about Apple and their products?

Re:So What? (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#32122984)

What the hell does some random site changing browser tech have to do with the rest of the 97 percent of the computing world that doesn't give a damn about Apple and their products?

Just because we don't care about Apple, that doesn't mean that we want Flash; I'll celebrate the day I can finally uninstall that bloated swamp of security holes from all my PCs.

Re:So What? (2, Insightful)

Antity-H (535635) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123252)

Don't worry, by the time you are able to do that, they will have implemented twice as much security holes directly in the browser. it might be slightly less bloated (more likely : much more bloated) and some of the holes will be advertised as "features" but they will be there nonetheless.

Better for Android too. (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123026)

This is a story targeted at the hardcore Apple Hipster Douchebags

I wasn't aware Android users were "Apple Hipster Douchebags".

Because after all, this means all Android users will be able to use Scribd now. Not just the select few with the very latest devices WHEN Flash support arrives on Android.

After all, these are DOCUMENTS we are talking about. Why should they not be easily readable on any mobile device, not just those few that support Flash (which currently is none).

Re:Better for Android too. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123108)

There are current handsets that support flash right now. My desire supports flash, my 3-4 year old HTC TyTN supports flash.

What's coming for Android that I think your referring to is just the new build of flash which Adobe are hyping.

Go Fuck Yourself (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123144)

You fucking piece of shit.

Go back to suck Jobs' cock you fucking loser.

Re:So What? (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123138)

That's right. This story which doesn't mention Apple, which benefits users of basically all modern browsers, which isn't bad for anyone except maybe Adobe---except that Adobe is also building HTML5 tools that they'll do just fine selling--is clearly just targeted to hardcore hipster apple d-bags.

I'm pretty sure that an equal number don't give a damn about Adobe and their products. As far as this site goes, trashing Flash, nothing of value was lost.

Re:So What? (3, Insightful)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123706)

Its a poignant piece because of the ipad and Apples refusal to allow Flash. Its timely because it signals the death of Flash, and appropriate because HTML5 is really here, not vapor, and major sites are moving to HTML5.

I am not an Adobe hater by any means, I wish them well. I have no love of Flash, its always been too buggy and too bloated to match its usefulness. I am fairly certain you do not have to like Apple or be a fanboy to recognize this. You just have to be realistic. Flash has always been crap.

And since you love Flash everything you say will be crap too.

--Dilvish

Re:So What? (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123346)

This is a story targeted at the hardcore Apple Hipster Douchebags

No, it's a story targeted at people with smartphones. A big market segment that can't use Flash.

Re:So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123398)

Not everyone with a smartphone. The N900 supports flash.

HTML5 (-1, Troll)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 3 years ago | (#32122966)

Can we quit calling everything that uses HTML5 video "HTML5"? The HTML5 standard contains a lot more than just a new video element (although, I suppose, intentionally cutting down on the number of plugins you need for modern browsing is a significant feature).

Slashdot could "switch to HTML5," and it wouldn't mean anything about their videos (they have videos?). Also, Scribd could have switched to HTML5...and still use Flash.

Picky, I know, but I think it's important to realize the whole standard isn't about video.

Re:HTML5 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32122996)

You do realize that Scribd HTML5 has nothing to do with video, right? The main features they were looking for are proper (better) layout and web fonts.

"We" just did that. (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123014)

Can we quit calling everything that uses HTML5 video "HTML5"?

I'd be happy to but... what the hell are you talking about"

Scribd is all documents, all the time. As in things you read?

Re:"We" just did that. (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123302)

Scribd is all documents, all the time. As in things you read?

Their HTML5 section isn't. When I use that, I just get a bunch of empty frames that I suppose are meant to be pages full of text.

Still not video (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123484)

Their HTML5 section isn't.

Weither or not the HTML5 reader is up and running on specific portions of the site is not relevant. It still has nothing to do with video.

As much as I admire the effort to make people think beyond video with HTML5, this was just a terrible time to bring that up.

Re:"We" just did that. (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123846)

I clicked on this scribd thing, and I copied some fancy text to a text editor, but I did not get the sounds. You know, the "woosh" sounds I normally get. Is my HTML5 broken? Can I get it replaced? I suppose thats better than what you have, no text and all. Maybe you could could replace your brain? Or your browser?

Thanks for your help.

Re:"We" just did that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32124186)

woosh

Re:HTML5 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123032)

Scribd isn't a video site, so I'm not sure why you keep talking about the HTML5 video tag. Yes, it's becoming increasingly more common for people to think HTML5 == <video>, but that's not what this summary is about. I do agree with you though.

uhh? weird (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 3 years ago | (#32122986)

So, I'm using the latest chrome, and the latest firefox, and the latest safari... and if I disable flash and attempt to go to any of the "html5" documents... I get "You need to upgrade to the latest flash player to access this content".... If I leave flash enabled, I get the same old clunky flash document viewer... so uh what gives?

Re:uhh? weird (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123008)

The best is when they tell you to do all this neat stuff in their "welcome to html5" presentation... and then none of it works, cause its still in flash...

Re:uhh? weird (2, Informative)

Entropy2016 (751922) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123170)

In my Safari and Chrome it works perfectly fine. Are you sure you're not doing something wrong?

You have to enable it. (4, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123210)

Go to scribd.com, notice the Google Ad, click "try it now". Or, on most of their featured pages, you should be able to click "view with HTML" on the right side.

So, it's something they're trying out. It's not actually the default yet.

So where's the HTML5? (1)

Sowelu (713889) | more than 3 years ago | (#32122988)

I clicked on one of the supposedly HTML5 books, but it's still in flash. I right click on it, and it says "About Adobe Flash Player" at the bottom of the context menu.

Re:So where's the HTML5? (3, Informative)

punit_r (1080185) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123188)

Do one of the following:

1. Click on the "See this document in HTML mode" link to the right
OR
2. Replace "doc" in the address bar with "documents"

it begins.. (1)

studionone (1806346) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123010)

Thank you, this had absolutely made my day. Die Flash, die...

Already Dead (2, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123204)

Flash is like a zombie. Even though may be walking, it's already dead. It just doesn't know it. Yet.

Re:Already Dead (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123238)

Flash is like a zombie. Even though may be walking, it's already dead. It just doesn't know it. Yet.

And if you don't keep installing security patches it will eat your brain...

LOL! LOL! LOL! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123366)

LOL!

Didn't really give a shit about Flash before. But now that I see fucking retards like you desperately and frantically trying to spout this shit hoping it somehow effects some sort of change on the web is just fucking awesome.

The fact that Flash is here to stay.
The fact that Flash is on some 95 percent of computers.
The fact that there is nothing remotely close to Flash's content tools or will be for many, many years.
The fact that tens of millions of Android phones will be upgrading to Flash very soon.
The fact that Google now has Chrome auto-updating Flash.

And the fact that all of this ABSOLUTELY KILLS MISERABLE FUCKS LIKE YOU.

Is FUCKING AWESOME.

Cry bitch. Cry.

Scribd adds what value, exactly? (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123012)

Scribd is more of a pain than a useful tool. It's basically an online PDF viewer, one which makes content non-downloadable. It takes away functionality; you can't select and cut text. So it's really more a form of DRM than anything else.

You can get most of the same effect by rendering your document to PDF with the page size set to "trade paperback".

Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? (2, Insightful)

virgilp (1774784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123166)

Furthermore, I find their "major reason" that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality to be a blatant lie. To give one example - ok, HTML5 supports webfonts... but how exactly are you going to license the fonts from Adobe (or any other font foundry that doesn't give away the font for free)?

Don't get me wrong: the ability to select, search (*) and so on is great, and could be a very good reason per se to switch. But I don't think that the solution is to flame things up.... just go the Google way, they added HTML5 video on youtube (where possible(!) ) and didn't make so much fuss about scrapping a plugin that enabled them to have a business in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that this is going to backfire for scribd in the future, as they have set some not-so-realistic expectations with their messaging, in the hopes of getting lots of publicity. This whole HTML5 craze reminds me of the similar period when XML was fashionable and thought (by some) that it will replace SQL databases, and would become the universal-good-for-all-storage-format. Guess what, Oracle is still around :)

(*) Search doesn't really work in my experience... check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5 [scribd.com] . If you select text in a box you can then search (& find stuff in that box), but not in all boxes; for instance, try searching "me three".

Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123564)

Furthermore, I find their "major reason" that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality to be a blatant lie. To give one example - ok, HTML5 supports webfonts... but how exactly are you going to license the fonts from Adobe (or any other font foundry that doesn't give away the font for free)?

That's a big point I hadn't thought of.. are they planning to pirate all of the fonts? Surely their spammy business model doesn't afford them the margins to properly license all of the typefaces. Further, how will they accurately preserve layouts or typesetting? This is something the PDF format does extraordinarily well, it's unfortunate that all of the browser plugins are terrible (at least on Windows, which represents ~90% of their user base.) I admittedly have spent little to no time working with the format on a low level, but at a glance I don't see why PDF can't be rendered in-browser the same way we finally got SVG support..

That's why they're doing HTML5. (4, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123220)

You can select and copy text. I'm sure you can find a way to spider the pure HTML pages. Even if you can't, Scribd has always allowed you to download the original PDF.

Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123868)

But what is the point of Scribd? (Hint: There is absolutely none.)
Just replace every link to Scribd with the link to the PDF, and you’re good.
Oh, wait, that’s actually easy to do with Greasemonkey. Except that Scribd still requires you to log in, and get a session id to download it. So it’s still pointless DRM / obfuscation.

Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#32124074)

Yeah, inquiring mind want to know.

I have wondered from the first time I went to Scribd, what is the point of it?

The *only* point I could see of Scribd technology is if it was part of a platform similar to Google docs.

I would be very glad if someone here could explain us the use cases of Scribd. Please?

Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32124134)

But what is the point of Scribd? (Hint: There is absolutely none.)

It makes it possible to deeplink into pdf's?

Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. (2, Insightful)

mTor (18585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123896)

Even if you can't, Scribd has always allowed you to download the original PDF.

Not true at all. Person who uploads PDF can prevent download of files. A person who upload can even prevent you from copying text out of files!

I personally dislike Scribd simply because they host a ton of other people's content. I found 4 of my PDFs there ( 3 presentations, one ebook) and the people who uploaded them were making money off it and so was Scribd (ads).

Re:That's why they're doing HTML5. (2, Insightful)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32124228)

Do you hate google as well? They also give you access to stuff other people made public, often illegally.

Hell, we should shut down the whole internet.

Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123474)

That's for people who don't know how to install a decent pdf viewer.

Re:Scribd adds what value, exactly? (1)

cgomezr (1074699) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123764)

I agree. I just don't see that site's point. It comes up sometimes when I'm searching for some quick fact, it takes ages to load and when it does, it shows me a PDF where I can't perform basic functions like select text and copy, and other functions are extremely slow. So why don't they give me a damn link to the PDFs and that's it? It would be way more useful.

Still hoping they fail completely (0, Troll)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123020)

It's nice and all that they are seemingly committed to creating the greatest HTML5 development tools out there, but I just can't bring myself to trust that company.

They have notoriously defended their IP with some really dirty behavior and security through obscurity is never a good idea.

Adobe's idea of document security for the longest time was basically a text warning in the header that said, "Watch out are we will use our friends in the FBI to arrest you and hold you indefinitely".

They may have some pretty neat products, but that corporate culture just needs to die and go away. Please.

My God Are You An Idiot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123248)

Get the fuck off this site. Just do it.

Re:My God Are You An Idiot (2, Informative)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123658)

An idiot really? None of what I said is untrue, and it is not trolling.

Why don't you look into the story of Dmitry Sklyarov? What you will find is a company, Adobe, that not only pushed security through obscurity, but brought great shame to the US by conspiring with the FBI to horribly abuse the man.

And over what? Pointing out that Adobe Document security was a farce?

This has nothing to do with open-source, closed-source, flash-sucks, flash-rules, proprietary-platforms, whatever. What it has always been about is Adobe's behaviors defending and promoting it's business and that it has not always been in their own customers best interests.

You can claim that is trolling and hate me for it, but Adobe is a horrible company, with pretty decent development products. It does not matter to me if they really do make the best HTML5 tools in the world. They are still Adobe, and Adobe at the end of the day, has demonstrated just how dirty and nasty they are willing get......

I feel the same way about Sony. Once a rootkit malware installer, always a rootkit malware installer.

It's like an aged pedophile out of prison after 20 years. Sure, he may seem like a nice guy now, and tries so hard to (seemingly) do the right thing and smile, but you would be foolish to forget he fucked some little boy in the ass .

That's all I ever point out about Adobe and Sony. No, they don't deserve a second chance.

Re:My God Are You An Idiot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32124172)

That's not the point. The point is what you're saying makes no fucking sense. Did you read the summary? Who are you hoping fails? Scribd? Obviously not, they don't make HTML5 development tools. Adobe? Nobody's talking about Adobe or their Document security here, because this artice is about Scribd!

Lay off with the random tangents.

Not Really HTML5... (5, Informative)

Torrance (1599681) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123028)

So far as I can tell this is mostly just html4.1 plus some web-fonts thrown in (which is properly css3), and a bunch of mostly browser-specific css. Not really html5. They mention canvas in their introduction, but I haven't come across an example.

Certainly looks better than the flash, but take a look at the source code and it'll make your eyes bleed. So much for semantic code - there are spans and divs up the wazoo.

Re:Not Really HTML5... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123052)

I'll settle for unruly code if it deprecates and banishes flash... hands down

Re:Not Really HTML5... (2, Insightful)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123574)

I'll settle for unruly code if it deprecates and banishes flash... hands down

So it's just a holy war for you, rather than the actual best tool or solution for the job?

That sort of spaghetti markup leads to huge pages, increased CPU load (browsers trying to render and mark up all the tags and mangled CSS), and other ill effects. It's not quite a black & white, "HTML IS BETTER THAN FLASH!" like you want it to be.

Re:Not Really HTML5... (1)

acidrainx (806006) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123060)

When you're converting PowerPoint to HTML, it's not exactly trivial to generate semantic code.

Re:Not Really HTML5... (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123788)

Sounds a bit like something is wrong with the PowerPoint interface, aside from the general bloat and usability issues.
It's seems similar the same problem Adobe are currently having with Flash. Adobe needs to come up with an excellent HTML5 authoring tool and put Flash on the back-burner as a vector animation and on-line games platform, perhaps.

Re:Not Really HTML5... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32124276)

this is mostly just html4.1

I hear they took the HTML 4.1 specifications, ripped it off in it's entirety, made some small tweaks, and are calling it "HTML5". Shocking I know.

In all seriousness, "HTML5" really means "doing stuff with html/css/scripting that wasn't possible in old web browsers". Scribed is using javascript to control the position of certain elements on the page, which was too slow until recently, and using the new canvas feature to do vector artwork, and using custom fonts — that's been around for a long time, but wasn't broadly supported.

There's plenty of things going on on that page which were either difficult or impossible with HTML/CSS/JavaScript just a few years ago.

Wow. (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123056)

You mean an open standard won out over a proprietary implementation?

Flash is about to be marginalized. It will happen quickly, in much the same way as the open HTML/DOM/Javascript beat out over 20 years of Microsoft "innovations" such as VB and .NOT. And in much the same way as Android is about the slaughter the iPhone.

See, open standards usually follow proprietary "trail blazers". Once the standard has been defined, copy-cats move in and do the same things, cheaper.

Apple originally won the desktop computer war, then lost it to the more open (and less expensive) Microsoft, which finally is losing it's lead to the even more open (and inexpensive) web/SOAP API. Apple got it right again with the iPhone, but is already losing it again with the highly proprietary iPhone now rapidly losing market share rapidly against the more open Linux/Google/Android platform. (Android's 4x marketshare growth in a single month - WTF!?!)

As a note, I have an HTC WinMo phone right now, but my next phone will almost assuredly be... Android!

Hello, mods? (2, Informative)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123338)

Why on Earth has this been moderated "troll"? I don't agree with everything in the post, but there's sure-as-hell no trolling here!

Re:Hello, mods? (0, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123908)

Didn’t you know? The trolls now have mod points too! And they mod everything down that they don’t like. No matter if it’s actually true, insightful, informative or anything. The behavior can be compared to religious fundamentalist in rage over you calling out their bullshit.

I very often post comments that are true but that many people would like to censor, and I got a weird rise in comments being modded Troll or Flamebait for no reason at all. I call those people trollerators. And I fear Slashdot is going down the drains because of them. :/
(Ok, anyone with a four-digit id might tell me, that it already did a loong time ago. ;)

Re:Wow. (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123566)

I would like to believe that, really i would, but history has shown us that better isnt always the best selling concept.

My attempts at using HTML5 on my iPhone have been clunky at best, I remember this game called PieMan, a rip from the PacMan we all love. The issue was the caching, i simply found it too slow, its navigation on the touch screen was temperamental and it would pick the worst times to hang on me and as a result i gave up on it all togeather in about 15 mins, granted it could of been bad programming HTML5 but for me it goes to show how experimental it is.

I think with maturity it could possibly fade flash out but then again there are far to many industry experienced developers out there making money of being a flash developer, it those you have to convince to use HTML5.

If someone was to build a good canvas app like Adobe Flash CS for HTML5, introduce it for free and have an easy to use API which can easily be implemented, then we would see the shake up we've all been waiting for.

Re:Wow. (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123586)

You mean an open standard won out over a proprietary implementation?

Flash is about to be marginalized. It will happen quickly, in much the same way as the open HTML/DOM/Javascript beat out over 20 years of Microsoft "innovations" such as VB and .NOT.

Huh? This is akin to saying Coca Cola beat out Honda..

Re:Wow. (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123596)

.NOT?

Am I to believe that's a rip on the .net framework? If so, I'm curious to hear your arguments on the subject. The .net framework isn't something to make light of.

Re:Wow. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123812)

And in much the same way as Android is about the slaughter the iPhone.

Sadly, I doubt that. For non-geeks the iPhone is the one to have.

My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32123146)

... and every time I scroll in HTML5 Scribd,

wwwwWWWHHOOOOOSSSHHHHhhh

Stop scrolling? ...silence. Start scrolling again?

wwwwWWWHHOOOOOSSSHHHHhhh

Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... (1)

Inf0phreak (627499) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123290)

Same here---sort of. Old desktop 2.4GHz P4 and scrolling causes 100% CPU usage in Firefox 3.6 which is supposed to have a decent Javascript implementation, but apparently not. I would test with Chrome, but the installer always fails on this machine with a completely useless error message. Don't know why.

Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... (3, Interesting)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123602)

Same here---sort of. Old desktop 2.4GHz P4 and scrolling causes 100% CPU usage in Firefox 3.6 which is supposed to have a decent Javascript implementation, but apparently not. I would test with Chrome, but the installer always fails on this machine with a completely useless error message. Don't know why.

That's because it's not necessarily a JavaScript issue, it's a omg-that's-a-lot-of-bad-markup (HTML and CSS) issue. And FireFox is getting more and more bloated with every release. I suspect your browser does similar on giant Slashdot threads, too?

Re:My CPU fan is controlled by PWM... (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123702)

2.8 GHz Dual Core Athlon here and the scrolling is slow and knocks both cores to 100%. It's fine in Chrome though

web fonts, really? (1)

dragisha (788) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123202)

Then why almost all text in their HTML5 introductory comic was overflowing those baloons? Isn't it supposed to be WYSIWYG thing?

The Insensitive clods! (2, Informative)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123230)

From TFA: "Every mobile phone, e-reader,computer, tablet, and pocket watch can display HTML....ok, maybe not the pocket watch!"

And maybe not the mobile phone either. WAP 1.0 phones are still about.

Can not search in document (1)

DollyTheSheep (576243) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123282)

I cannot search for text with the Firefox' find dialog. But they say, that their documents are now fully part of the HTML infrastructure, so they should be searchable, no? Try their self-introduction [scribd.com] for HTML 5 and see, whether you can search for "Highlight me!", which is in the middle of the document.

Or I'm doing something wrong here?

Re:Can not search in document (2, Funny)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123776)

You're not wrong. Also their built-in search function just says "search coming soon".

Socialcubix (0, Offtopic)

socialcubix (1806382) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123296)

Apple is forcing out flash and encouraging developers to use the HTML 5 and CSS3 for web content. Is this a win for HTML5. Adobe is not pleased with the banning of the Flash to iphone compiler, but that 's not doing to stop them from deveoping ad improving Flash. Since Flash can still do amazing effects that no amount of HTML 5 or Java script can come close to at that speed , Flash have still a huge market. Here are some pros and cons of HTML and Flash Flash Pros Flash players allow for uniformity to all browser. More effects than HTML5 and Javascript. Vector based for easy scaling. Flash Cons Search engines don't read Flash well. SWFs can be take and large while to download. External plugin has to be downloaded to view Flash. HTML5 Pros Very fast with CSS. Canvas and Video. Geolaction API. HTML5 Cons Not ully supported to all browsers. Limited effects and animation. Slower animation than Flash. Should I use Flash?

I would never let my HTML sit in a Flash 'window' (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#32123520)

What if someone bumps my computer? It could fall out and the links would break.

The experience isn't actually any better (3, Interesting)

DeanLearner (1639959) | more than 3 years ago | (#32124002)

So from a clients perspective (mine in this case)the HTML5 experience is slow whereas the flash experience is reasonably quick.

And from the server point of view HTML5 is slower as well...

HTML5 - Served by app04 in 1.168 secs. cpu: 1.100

Flash - Served by app10 in 0.482 secs. cpu: 0.420

What's the point then?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...