Beta
×

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!

Breakthroughs In HTML Audio Via Manipulation With JavaScript

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the infinite-malleability dept.

Firefox 141

jamienk writes "Imagine if you could grab and manipulate audio with JavaScript just like you can images with Canvas. Firefox experimental builds let you do just that: crazy audio visualizations, a graphic equalizer, even text-to-speech, all in JavaScript! Work in progress; you need a special build of Firefox (videos available), being worked on via W3C."

cancel ×

141 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Firefox, eh? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352826)

So I'm guessing it only supports FLAC and Ogg Vorbis?

Re:Firefox, eh? (0, Offtopic)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352840)

Yes it would seem still no native mp3 support.
The real fundamental question is, however, do we really want to use java for audio?

Re:Firefox, eh? (1)

TheReal_sabret00the (1604049) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352934)

Isn't mp3 set to be free soon?

Re:Firefox, eh? (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353110)

I thought at first that themp3 standard [digitalpreservation.gov] was already "free":

Open standard. Developed by the Motion Pictures Expert Group (MPEG), Coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information.

However, mp3 is not free [mp3licensing.com] ...yet. Some of these patents are set to expire on their 20 year time frame in a couple of years it would seem.

Re:Firefox, eh? (2, Informative)

Compenguin (175952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353240)

> However, mp3 is not free...yet. Some of these patents are set to expire on their 20 year time frame in a couple of years it would seem.

Yes, the next MP3 patent expires this Sunday. The longest patent seems to expire in 2018 but that appears to be MPEG-2 LSF and only required for low sample rate MP3s. So the next furthest date looks like April 2017 but it may be worth double checking the dates on those around 2014/2015.

http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=MP3_Patents [multimedia.cx]

Re:Firefox, eh? (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352986)

Yes it would seem still no native mp3 support.
The real fundamental question is, however, do we really want to use java for audio?

mp3 is a patent-encumbered standard. We don't want any of that in your open standards, now do we? Also, javascript is not java; it really has nothing to do with java, except the ill-chosen name.

Re:Firefox, eh? (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353136)

Also, javascript is not java; it really has nothing to do with java, except the ill-chosen name.

Valid point...I see where the 'Offtopic' tag came from now, thanks :)

Re:Firefox, eh? (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353216)

First, mp3 requires royalties that would make firefox non-free. Second, java != javascript.

Re:Firefox, eh? (4, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353572)

Third, unlike Theora and H.264, Vorbis is actually much better than MP3.

Vorbis vs MP3 (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354052)

Vorbis is actually much better than MP3.

In all honest ignorance and curiosity, how so, aside from the patent legal issues? Are the file sizes smaller? Is playback processor load less? Is playback quality at a set sampling rate audibly better? Etc., etc.

Cheers,

Re:Vorbis vs MP3 (4, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354814)

Vorbis has smaller file sizes for the same quality or better quality for the same file size (q1 (~80kbps) is easily comparable to 128kbps MP3).
Vorbis also supports up to 255 channels with official channel ordering specs up to 8 channels (7.1), while MP3 only supports mono and stereo.

Re:Firefox, eh? (1)

mick232 (1610795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353602)

We use Flash for video. I see no reason to not use JavaScript (or Java) for audio.

Re:Firefox, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353790)

Flash as it exists now was built with video in mind. Javascript as it exists now..is an amalgamation of junk that is semi-functional in the hands of the incompetent and only MOSTLY functional in the hands of professionals. wtfjs.com explains this a bit better.

I'm all for this (0, Troll)

bmecoli (963615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352832)

The quicker we can get away from our reliance on that god awful Quicktime, the better.

Re:I'm all for this (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352868)

FYI, Quicktime is not awful at all on Mac OS X, nor is Safari and iTunes. And almost everything from Microsoft and Adobe sucks on Mac OS X.

I don't know why you associate Quicktime with online audio, so what you probably meant to say was "The quicker we can get away from our reliance on that god awful Flash, the better."

Be prepared for another "Firefox vs the World" with this, however: Vorbis vs MP3/AAC.

Re:I'm all for this (0)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352942)

"Be prepared for another "Firefox vs the World" with this, however: Vorbis vs MP3/AAC."

We beat Microsoft and Apple once before. Open Source can do it again.

Re:I'm all for this (0, Troll)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353142)

What do you mean by "We beat Microsoft and Apple once before"? The market share for both Firefox and Opera is stable but the marketshare for Safari and Chrome is going up.

Firefox is bloated, I for one don't want to use it. It's either Safari, Chrome or Opera for me.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353832)

but the marketshare for Safari and Chrome is going up.

The marketshare for Safari is only going when new iPhones or iPads come out. If you look at the w3schools.com listings, you'll see that when new Apple products aren't coming out, the marketshare for Safari actually went down from 3.8% to 3.7%, whereas the number a year ago was a little over 3%. Considering the number of Apple handhelds entering the market, you'd think the number would be going up faster than that.

In the same period that Safari went from 3.1 to 3.8 percent, Chrome went from 4.9 to 13.6 percent.

Re:I'm all for this (2, Informative)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354326)

If you look at the w3schools.com listings

For fuck's sake, when will people understand that the listings on w3schools.com ARE ONLY FOR THAT SITE AND NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GLOBAL MARKET SHARE?!

Re:I'm all for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353898)

really? When did you beat Apple and Microsoft? And if you did such a good job of beating them, why do you need to beat them again?

Re:I'm all for this (2, Informative)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353002)

Be prepared for another "Firefox vs the World" with this, however: Vorbis vs MP3/AAC.

Not really. Vorbis has about the same quality per bit as AAC (unlike theora vs h264), and it's established long enough to not have patent issues. There's no reason not to implement support for Vorbis, and it's plenty good enough to be the default codec. What's more, Youtube's behind Vorbis (it's part of the WebM spec), and since Flash has pledged support for WebM, they'll have it too.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353106)

And from what I've read, there is no-floating-point software decoders that don't require much CPU power either, so software-only solutions won't drain the battery significantly. I don't doubt for a second that Opera would also support Ogg Vorbis. The problem would be to get Microsoft and Apple to add support to their products.

However, if we look at the past:

- Microsoft: BMP screen captures (Microsoft format)
- Apple: PNG screen captures (Open format)

- Microsoft: Windows Media Audio/Video (two Microsoft formats)
- Apple: H.264/AAC and MP3 support (non-Apple formats, already established industry standards formats)

Apple would probably go with MP3, AAC and Vorbis audio files in Safari 5.
Microsoft would probably go with MP3 and WMA in Internet Explorer 12.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353428)

Why would you even bring up BMP in this context?

It is barely a format. It is not encumbered by patents.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354446)

I brought it up to show that when Apple needed a file format for the screenshots of Mac OS X, they went with PNG (which is open like Vorbis) while Microsoft created BMP.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354800)

Uh-huh, it just doesn't work very well as an example, what, with there being a 10+ year gap between the selections of the formats and png not existing when Microsoft "created" bmp (it would be reasonable to say that they specified bmp, it is not very complex, it is basically a way of organizing raw bitmap data, with no support for any compression, so most of the bits in the file map directly to the display).

Especially considering that the paint.exe that shipped with Windows XP has (at least some) support for Jpeg, GIF, PNG and TIFF.

Using stupid examples doesn't really add any weight to your argument.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

chromas (1085949) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354942)

BMP was around long before OSX. What was Apple using before OSX?

Re:I'm all for this (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353942)

Microsoft is not blocking WebM (just not shipping with it). And they have always allowed whatever codec installs for WMP/IE in the past. Contrast this with Safari and Apple's stance on Theora.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354112)

- Microsoft: Windows Media Audio/Video (two Microsoft formats)
- Apple: H.264/AAC and MP3 support (non-Apple formats, already established industry standards formats)

Apple would probably go with MP3, AAC and Vorbis audio files in Safari 5.

Do you have reason to believe that Apple will include Vorbis support for Safari but MS will not support it for IE12?

As a content creator, I really like Ogg Vorbis. The limited number of devices and apps that support it is a drag. I hope it becomes more widely accepted. I like FLAC too, especially as an archiving format, but it can be an even bigger pain to get people to accept because support is so poor (especially on Apple). There are lots of Windows apps that support FLAC, but precious few for Apple. Fortunately, Sansa has been pretty friendly to both formats, so I recommend those players to my clients. Now if Sansa would only come out with a large storage device that has a screen at least as big as a Zune (and hopefully as big as an iPod Touch). I haven't heard anything about them coming out with such a device, though. Android devices look hopeful for the better formats.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354528)

My reason to believe this is the two lines you didn't quote from my post:

- Microsoft: BMP screen captures (Microsoft format)
- Apple: PNG screen captures (Open format)

If Apple was so anti-open-formats, they would never have picked PNG as the default format for screenshots. Microsoft has a history of always creating their own formats even when a multitude of alternatives already exist (kind of like Sony with their half a dozen Memory Stick types).

But I guess Apple could have used FLAC instead of creating Apple Lossless. There may be some technical or legal details we're not aware of. For corporations, it's not always the best technical solution that gets used because of legal reasons, licensing costs, etc.

Since the patents for MPEG Layer III audio have expired/are about to expire, shouldn't we use that instead of Vorbis or AAC?

Re:I'm all for this (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353156)

Vorbis has about the same quality per bit as AAC (unlike theora vs h264), and it's established long enough to not have patent issues.

Age is not an issue, MPEG-2 still has patent issues! The issue is that Vorbis has not been adopted by enough deep pockets for the patent trolls to come out yet. Already they are licking their lips over VP8.

Re:I'm all for this (2, Informative)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353220)

Vorbis has been used by a number of major game publishers [xiph.org] for game audio, precisely because it has no license fees. I think WoW would be a big enough target for the patent trolls, how about you?

Re:I'm all for this (1)

valros (1741778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353646)

I'm not sure of the speech packs but I remember seeing in the older MPQ's for WoW that the shorter sound effects were in WAV and longer songs in MP3.

Re:I'm all for this (0)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353080)

Mod this up. I can't remember the last time I used quicktime since flash came along.

Re:I'm all for this (2, Informative)

KuNgFo0 (519426) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353342)

Example case - trailers from trailers.apple.com - the ones hosted at apple typically demand that you have Quicktime installed (obviously since Quicktime is their technology). Quicktime might be dandy on the Mac but is most definitely god awful on the PC - much worse than Flash, in fact I'd put it in the same category as Adobe Reader or Real Player plugins.

Further more, Quicktime's browser plugin assigns itself as the default player for many types of media - including mp3 files. So every time I click on an .mp3 link in Firefox, the Quicktime plugin fires up and starts playing it - and its player sucks. Also, since it's impossible to install iTunes without Quicktime, every time I install or upgrade iTunes I have to go through and decrap-ify all the mime associations for Quicktime.

Yes I will be happy when Quicktime dies.

Re:I'm all for this (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354546)

Aren't trailers from that website encoded in H.264 video, AAC audio in a standard MP4 container? Shouldn't that play on anything from Windows Media Player to VLC?

frosty (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352850)

let me be the firht to say "whoop de fucking dooodly doo!".

Re:frosty (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353030)

Wow, Ned been hitting the sacramental wine again?

Pac-Man (0)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352852)

Pac-Man played sound on the Google homepage, wasn't that done in JavaScript?

Re:Pac-Man (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352882)

No, that was Flash, and it caused lots of ire, particularly in combination with Firefox plugin that loaded the Google homepage in the background. I hope there'll be a sound=off option, because I still remember the 90s and web pages with MIDI sounds.

Re:Pac-Man (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353334)

Humorously, I actually thought the game was silent when I first viewed it. Once again, ClickToFlash delivers an improved user experience.

Re:Pac-Man (1)

TheReal_sabret00the (1604049) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354664)

Correction: That was HTML5 (JS, audio and Canvas) on whichever systems could hack it. Flash was the fall-back.

Re:Pac-Man (0)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352898)

It was done via Flash.

Re:Pac-Man (2, Informative)

scurker (1381139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352992)

The game and all the movements were Javascript. The sounds were done with flash.

Re:Pac-Man (0)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353100)

I tried to save that thing locally (before they announced they weren't going to take it down). Strangely the Flash file fails to callback to JS if I save it locally, causing audio to be disabled. Not sure why this is... too bad, it would make an awesome Chrome Web App.

Re:Pac-Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353172)

No. The audio was done via Flash. The rest was done in Javascript.

Flash Helper; State of JS Audio (2, Interesting)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353184)

From what I've read, there was an off-screen flash helper playing the audio, and I'm not surprised. It's nigh impossible to get reliable audio with JavaScript only. People have been doing some experiments with stuffing data urls into , , and tags for a while now (heck, I've been doing it since last fall) in order to programmatically generate audio, but it generally suffers from performance issues and various glitches for a while now. You can mostly pull it off only if you stick with MIDI or you use Flash or Java to deliver the audio.

Here's something I didn't get until recently: Audio is in some ways harder than video. It's more timing sensitive. With video, you're generally slinging a lot more data per frame, but you can get away with *much* lower frame rates... 24 fps works, 60's not bad, and you don't have to get much higher than that to pass the threshold of perception. With audio, very small "frames"/samples will hold adequately resolved data from one point in the signal, but you have to move a lot *more* of them (44,100 of 'em per second for CD quality audio) and move them *reliably* in order to get sound fidelity. JavaScript timing might be millisecond reliable except in IE, but it's not microsecond reliable. Totally realtime programmatic sound is probably out of the question for a while.

But, programmatic generation of the audio *data* is possible now, and you can probably precompute enough things ahead of time that if they can work the bugs out of the audio tag or something else to enable microsecond level starting/stoping/looping of playback, then pure JavaScript audio would get real wings.

Should've Previewed (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353434)

This:

have been doing some experiments with stuffing data urls into , , and tags for a while now

was meant to be

have been doing some experiments with stuffing data urls into <bgsound>, <embed>, <object>, and <audio> tags for a while now

Re:Flash Helper; State of JS Audio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353804)

There's a useful JQuery plugin called JPlayer that checks for compatibility, and loads an based player, if viewed on HTML5 capable browser, else it loads a Flash-based and lightweight one.
Here the home of the project http://www.happyworm.com/jquery/jplayer/

Re:Flash Helper; State of JS Audio (1)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354590)

Have you published your experiments anywhere? I have done some experiments with the audio tag and have been disappointed with the way it handles short programatically triggered sounds. It works (baring bug, like in Chrome) but I would love to see a better way.

Re:Flash Helper; State of JS Audio (2, Informative)

roca (43122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354600)

There is no Flash involved here, you read wrong. I wonder why you got modded up.

Re:Flash Helper; State of JS Audio (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354788)

There is no Flash involved here, you read wrong.

In the topic of the linked article, or in Google's Pac-man?

I wonder why you got modded up.

Possibly because even if it turns out what I've read about GPac is incorrect, most of what I've written besides is correct.

Dear Internet: Sorry. (3, Funny)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352860)

All I can think of is <BLINK> </BLINK> turned into audio!

Of course this has good uses (blind users with scripts available), but I can see how this will end badly for the rest of us.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352924)

You mean annoying like people who put their comments between <code> tags?

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353096)

Well, he's a disciplined programmer, he puts comments in his code.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (0, Offtopic)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353270)

Goddamn it, why don't I ever have mod points when I need them?

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353022)

You mean that you expect this to actually be used?

IE doesn't even have support for canvas, Firefox has had it from 3.0 at least, and I think even 2.0 had some support.

If IE still has more than 30% worldwide marketshare, and doesn't have basic requirements for this, its not going to be used. Period.

Canvas has been around for ages and is there even a single practical example on a site people use daily? Yeah, there are about a million tech demos but very little actual use because IE doesn't support it.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1)

sfcat (872532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354056)

Actually, I'm building an enterprisy application right now that uses the canvas tag to emulate a 3D environment. We support IE via the Google Chrome Frame. So there's one way around your problem and one example of people using canvas in the real world.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1)

jyx (454866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354682)

If IE still has more than 30% worldwide marketshare, and doesn't have basic requirements for this, its not going to be used. Period.

People who use "Period" to end their sentences are close minded absolutists with no capacity for argument, contrary views or the small possibility that they may just be completely wrong. Period.

Seriously dude, this is a technology news site. Period. A good proportion of readers will see this as being cool and may knock up a few 'tech demo' pages to do some tricky stuff. Period. That means the technology has been used. Period. Someone may come up with 'the next big thing' that the commercial sites decide they cant live without. Period. MS will eventually patch in canvas support and you can go and declare your authoritative prophecies on other ideas. Period.

Next time, try the following, less inflammatory statement and watch the world explode into smiles, cuddles and happiness:

If IE still has more than 30% worldwide marketshare, and doesn't have basic requirements for this, its probably not going to be used on any significant or commercial scale.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354874)

IE9 will have Canvas

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354904)

Any chance google will help [techcrunch.com] Microsoft along again? (Heh, I'll bet MS *loves* that!)

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353140)

You know, there are already PLENTY of applications out there that blind users can use to turn text on screen to speech? And that a lot of people prefer to disable javascript from running?

Last thing we need is an "on Hover" Javascript ad, you mouse over, and audio gets maximized "FIND YOUR MATCH @ ADULTFINDER.COM!"

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1)

xOneca (1271886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353824)

Last thing we need is an "on Hover" Javascript ad, you mouse over, and audio gets maximized "FIND YOUR MATCH @ ADULTFINDER.COM!"

Can't that be done now with Flash?

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353708)

If internet explorer implemented something like this, then we would be complaining about the lack of web standards, but when Mozilla does it, then it is a breakthrough.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354560)

No, if IE implemented it we'd be complaining that it's proprietary technology, when Mozilla implements it we just complain that it's a stupid idea.

Re:Dear Internet: Sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353800)

Of course this has good uses (blind users with scripts available)

I'm confused. You think blinding users with scripts is a good use? And yet you speak ill of <BLINK>, which was often used for that very purpose.

Will it be used? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352894)

All these breakthroughs in Canvas and Javascript are useful, but will they be used?

Until IE implements even half these features, we will be stuck with "Quick"Time and Flash for quite some time...

Re:Will it be used? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353194)

> Until IE implements even half these features...

Or until IE is dead...

That's just (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352904)

music to my ears. Finally I will be able to listen to midis without a plugin.

The beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352916)

So... I won't be needing the Crescendo! plugin anymore for playing back great sounding MIDI music from people's gif-laden web pages?

Screen readers... (2, Insightful)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352920)

This will be fantastic for aiding those that have vision impairments. The 503 compliance will end up including this if it is ever standardized. (w3c not known for speed)

HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352952)

awesome, you could do that in Flash 5 years ago.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353306)

Not on any OS that Macromedia didn't bless with an implementation. Which is the reason why there's so much effort going into opening it up. You can't see Flash things if you don't have Flash.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353570)

Are you serious? I didn't know that you couldn't see Flash things if you don't have Flash. Shoot, I didn't even think about that. I wonder how many browsers have flash 8 or better installed, oh 99%

FYI, Flash is open, you can develop it for free, you could even write your own Flash player if you were so inclined. One more time FLASH IS OPEN! Adobe must be fucking crazy and closed for trying to make money by selling their version of an IDE and Player.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353374)

The difference is that we want flash to die horribly for a number of reasons.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353492)

And one of these would be that it allowed you to have sound in web pages.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353774)

With no way to fine-tune who is allowed sound and who isn't.

With a browser implementation of an open standard, it would be easy to add features such as muting a page's audio when (*gasp*) it's not in the foreground tab. Besides, there will no doubt be plenty of ways to turn off audio, partially or completely. And plug-ins like greasemonkey work great to hack around website JS features, while you can't do anything with Flash SWF blobs other than turn them on and off.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353376)

Yeah, but that is a pretty big draw back. You HAD to use Flash. Flash can now be thought of as "How to do HTML 5 badly".

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353740)

Oh, right. All those HTML 5 sites are really kicking Flash to the curb. I'm sure developers will screw up HTML5 just like developers screw up Flash. Flash has a much more powerful and advanced feature set HTML 5. If HTML 5 ever catches up, you are going to be seeing the same annoying problems with it as you do Flash, except all those annoying problems will be slightly different across browsers. Can't wait.

Re:HTML 5 is AMAZING!!! (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354464)

html 5 is screwed from the start because it isn't xhtml2.

If I was to design the future of the web, it would be xhtml2 with css3. Plus simple site based local storage (cookies that don't always get transmitted to the server would do if the storage size policy was a little less strict), the ability to transfer part of a model to the next page on submit without making a round trip to the server, and throw in some canvas/audio/video tags for everyone else enjoy.

Flash is AMAZING!!! (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353758)

awesome, you could do that in Flash 5 years ago.

awesome, you could do that in a Win32 app 15 years ago.

Re:Flash is AMAZING!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353922)

I think we are talking web stuff on this one, but awesome, I could do that at NORAD 50 years ago.

I Can't Wait! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32352954)

even text-to-speech, all in JavaScript!

WooHoo! I'm gonna have hidden fields in my web pages so this "text to speech" will say one thing while the text on the screen will say another!

Attention Mod point WHORES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352982)

Mod me down. Mod me up. Mod me now.

Re:Attention Mod point WHORES (0)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353234)

Sounds like the lyrics for a future Weird Al Yankovic song.

Java script is actually good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32352988)

nice to see a language I've spent 10+ of my years working with taking over the field completely.

How long will Java script reign?

Long live Java script!

don't say you weren't warned: (1, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353004)

the future os is the browser

the future os programming language is javascript

enjoy!

Re:don't say you weren't warned: (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353238)

You need to put "enjoy" in quotes.

Re:don't say you weren't warned: (0)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353720)

Does that mean the future Linux is Lynx? =P

Re:don't say you weren't warned: (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354526)

sure, but that's because the marketplace for browser-based languages is immature. As it displaces al other forms of programming platforms, Microsoft will bring out javascript.net, mozilla will bring out xpjavascript, and Google will bring out javavik.

See, the future will turn out to be just as good as today.

Re:don't say you weren't warned: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32354540)

Is there any reason DOM manipulation couldn't be added to other scripting languages like Python or Ruby (or ... Perl)?-

Re:don't say you weren't warned: (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354862)

The future sucks badly.

Hopefully, the world will end in 2012.

Re:don't say you weren't warned: (1)

mb1 (966747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32354988)

...the problem being that it's in "the future" that all these great things will exist in a way they can be easily and broadly used.

right now it's a messy pile of emerging and aging standards and big corporates at each other about their respective tech-sandpits, so the lowest common denominator often seems to be the winner. Javascript browser API's help things along (they're great) but they can't perform black magic like making everything use some canvas or some video codec or audio implementation or 3d api.

unfortunately, I'm guessing that "the future" will sort out lots of stuff but have all new fights over stuff everyone wants to use right then but has to wait for "the future's future".

don't get me started on "the future's future's future" either :)

ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353044)

welcome to flash 8.

Tap tap tap, is this thing on? (1)

scottwilkins (1224922) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353224)

Can you hear me now?

Blast from the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353366)

Ummm, I've got an idea! Lets go back 10 years in web standards and technologies..... I find the current HTML5 craze silly. You want wicked audio tools in your browser, try this: http://www.audiotool.com/ Oh its Flash and it kicks the HTML5 audio tag's ass.

Re:Blast from the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353558)

Sorry, no can't do. It's too slow on my phone.

irrelevant (0)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353410)

it does not help me one bit with building a beowulf cluster of javascript engines.

LoB

Oblig. Insenstive Clod posts inside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32353554)

*I'm deaf, you insensitive clod
*I have my sound off, you insensitive clod

Please add more....

wisdom (2, Insightful)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353684)

It was Chris Rock, who said, "You can do it, but that don't mean it's to be done."

Re:wisdom (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32353978)

and why in this case is it "not to be done"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>