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!

Apple's HTML5 and Standards Gallery Not Standard

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the par-for-the-course dept.

The Internet 527

snitch writes "Apple has created an HTML5 Showcase that presents its vision for the next generation of the WWW. The fact that this page is only accessible using the Safari browser, while Apple advocates about web standards, has caused many to criticize the company's lack of broader platform support. The showcase demonstrates several HTML5 capabilities and features that have to do with video, typography, transitions, audio, etc. Further, on the front page the company states that 'Standards aren't add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today.' The latter statement falls short by the fact that the featured examples only work with the Safari browser, and in the case of the CSS 3D transforms demonstration, require Mac OS X Snow Leopard (Safari PC or plain Leopard won't do)."

cancel ×

527 comments

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

Chrome (5, Informative)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475290)

Worked for me in Chrome.

Re:Chrome (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475312)

Worked for me in Chrome.

How about you actually try clicking one of the showcase items before you claim that it 'worked'?

Re:Chrome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475444)

or how about you just learn how to set the user-agent string in your browser so it says it's safari, and then give it a try before *you* say it didn't work? the demos work in chrome, most of them work in opera, but firefox fails at all of them.

Re:Chrome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475536)

Or how about I DON'T?

This is an interoperability demo, dumbass!

Which means that Firefox's "failing" is really Apple's own epic fail.

Re:Chrome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475616)

No, dumbass -- it's an HTML5 demo for Apple's users, most of whom browse with Safari.

This slashdot obsession with trolling Apple has gone waaaaaaay too far. You folks are looking pretty pathetic lately...

Re:Chrome (4, Interesting)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475674)

I'd of bought an iPad if it ran flash. I will not be buying another iPhone, as it does not run flash. I will never buy another piece of apple anything because Jobs is a narcissistic prick, who's only trying to wall everyone into his magic garden named the iStore at the cost of splintering the web.

Good lord let's get some universal standards in place, no matter what the hell they are.

Re:Chrome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475786)

"I would of" -- Lazy American English
"I would have" -- What you probably meant to say (protip: "of" isn't a verb)
"I'd have" -- What you probably should have written if you weren't speaking Lazy American, regardless of whether you are one or not.

Re:Chrome (4, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475696)

Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?! What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?

Trolling... Indeed... *shakes head*

Re:Chrome (0, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475548)

Why can't web pages do object detection instead of user-agent detection?

Re:Chrome (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475614)

I'm well aware of how to change the UA strings, and I've done that to view the samples. But nowhere did bozo up there say anything about doing that. That seems like a pretty important piece to his 'it worked for me' argument, no?

Re:Chrome (3, Informative)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475314)

No it didn't. I use chrome and I got a 'download safari' dialog box when I tried to view any of the showcases.

Re:Chrome (-1, Troll)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475402)

Yes, it did. Many of them also work in Opera. You're just - no offense - too stupid to change your browser's User Agent string so that it identifies itself as Safari, which is the only thing these demos check for.

Re:Chrome (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475464)

Oooh like that!

Clever, clever.

Re:Chrome (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475478)

Hmm, why should I have to?

Every new Apple mobile device and every new Mac -- along with the latest version of Apple's Safari web browser -- supports web standards including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. These web standards are open, reliable, highly secure, and efficient. They allow web designers and developers to create advanced graphics, typography, animations, and transitions. Standards aren't add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today.

The way they say it, makes it seem that you know any HTML5 enabled browser should run HTML5 enabled content.

Re:Chrome (5, Insightful)

ShadowEFX (152354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475482)

Yes, it did. Many of them also work in Opera. You're just - no offense - too stupid to change your browser's User Agent string so that it identifies itself as Safari, which is the only thing these demos check for.

You are - no offense - an arrogant prick who has missed the point. They claim to advocate standards across the intarwebs for all, putting up a page to view a new whiz-bang standard, but are forcing you to either download their browser, or take (what are to normal users) extraordinary means, to view the content.

Ability to change the User Agent has nothing at all to do with anything in this case.

Re:Chrome (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475542)

You seem to be missing the point: The fact that UA spoofing works is generally proof of either laziness or malice. Laziness is certainly common enough(remember the good old days when large numbers of sites would shriek for IE; but render just fine if FF was set to IE's UA string?); but malice also occurs from time to time(The old Opera/MSN [opera.com] story, for instance).

In this case, the fact that Apple is just UA sniffing is shabby at best. Just checking [modernizr.com] for feature support isn't rocket surgery. Neither would be sending the least interesting summer intern to test the demos on a couple of other browsers that are likely to work and accepting those UAs as well. The fact that their "HTML5 demo" is just "transparent Safari propaganda" isn't illegal or anything; but talking up "web standards" and then hardcoding your demo to only work with your browser doesn't exactly scream "intellectual honesty"...

Re:Chrome (1, Troll)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475692)

(remember the good old days when large numbers of sites would shriek for IE; but render just fine if FF was set to IE's UA string?)

The good old days? Oh, I see, you mean 5 years ago. I thought you were talking about the ancientweb when Netscape roamed the net and sites held out signs like "Explorers only, we don't serve nomads here".

Exactly (5, Interesting)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475708)

The hypocrisy can be summed up on that single page:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs explains why iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad do not support Flash and why open standards are the future of the web.

This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari.

The next keynote should just have two massive murals of Stalin flanking the podium while Big Brother Steve tells you what you'll be allowed to do with your own equipment. And when he announces that they are no longer preventing you from running certain applications, that will become a feature. I guess he did learn a thing or two from Mr. Gates.

Re:Exactly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475760)

Is Apple preventing other browsers from identifying themselves as Safari when browsing the web? no? then Apple hasn't contradicted themselves, this is a non-story.

Or that's how the zealots will justify it, anyways.

Re:Chrome (2)

Taagehornet (984739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475460)

I don't know about Chrome, but it definitely works on Android (HTC Desire), front-page as well as the individual demos. So whatever bug Apple may have had in their browser detection code has apparently been fixed by now - at least partly.

Missing the point (-1, Troll)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475658)

It's a demo of Safari's HTML 5 capability. Of Course you need safari to use it.

Standards and "Standards" (4, Insightful)

allo (1728082) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475296)

Apple is Microsoft 2.0

Re:Standards and "Standards" (0, Offtopic)

meatplow (184288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475378)

And no mod points when I could really use them.

Such predictable behaviors.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475404)

Apple is Microsoft 2.0

When they hit Microsoft 3.1, they will have finally achieved a usable level of evilness.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475414)

Does that make Google the successful 3.0 version?

Re:Standards and "Standards" (-1, Flamebait)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475448)

You are wrong. IF Apple's OS was a big target for virus, worms, malware and security issues, AND Apple said "yes, we know our OS sucks, is not secure and virus laden... but we've made this great software we call 'Apple Defender' that you can PURCHASE from us to make our OS what it should have been when you bought it,"

THEN Apple would be Microsoft 2.0.
As it is, Adobe holds that title, Adobe is the new Microsoft, and has been since the Millennium.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475510)

The Microsoft AntiVirus package is free.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475518)

Except the fact that Apple has continuously been increasing in exploits and been very slow to fix them. As more and more people use a Mac, more and more hackers will find it worthwhile to find exploits. This is exactly what is happening and if you knew anything about system security you would realize the only thing that protected Max in the past was because an exploit on the PC would compromise more users than the entire Mac community put together. This is still the fact now.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475554)

Were talking about why Corps make closed "standards" so they try to create a monopoly. Like when MS created IE6 and stillborn ActiveX their plan was to make all the web use that, and you know how well it ended. Seems like you like Apple, sorry, Apple is trying shamesly to do exactly what MS did in the 90's - And don't be so proud about MAC OSX security, there is already Botnet kits modified for MAC OSX, so your point is moot.

So this magical wwwalled garden is the reason HTML5 is being pushed?, let me say that all my interest in HTML5 is now dead Jim. Everything Apple touches ends up being a toy, an OCD friendly and worthless techonology. Thank Jebus they let the cat out of the bag early, I will not waste my time in HTML5.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475730)

Better lay off that Android phone then, which uses Webkit, or anything that uses CUPS, or storing your email messages in mbox format, or anything that is included in Darwin that is also used in other Unix and Unix-like OSes.

On second thought, better just avoid Unix altogether - better to be safe, eh?

And since you're avoiding HTML5, I assume you won't use Youtube any more.

--
Your criticism might be valid if they were pushing some proprietary Apple-only standard (like ActiveX with MS), but they are pushing HTML5 - a standard that they do not control (and as yet is still draft). While they very much want you to use Apple products to access your content, they have a history of making your *data* transparent and movable in and out of their ecosystem.

I think the user agent sniff is a little silly - I would have preferred a big warning page that stated that some of the demos would possibly fail in other browsers, but such is life.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (3, Informative)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475624)

Yeah. With their desire to subvert industry standards for their own gain, their love for releasing overpriced, crippled and locked-in products and their ability to convince their fanboys that Big Brother Knows Better(tm), Apple is more like the v2.0 of the '80s IBM than Microsoft or Adobe.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475684)

Microsoft. sure we pick on them for the bugs and virus's and spyware. That's not why we dislike Microsoft and has nothing to do with their "evil"

This would and also does not impact apple's "evil".

Re:Standards and "Standards" (5, Interesting)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475486)

I am starting to agree. Microsoft is looking less evil now. In fact, they provided some generous assistance last summer to Samba 4 developement. They helped the Samba 4 developers figure out why DRS (Directory Replication Services) was not working.

Re:Standards and "Standards" (1)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475784)

"Apple is Microsoft 2.0"

Ridiculous.

Microsoft, in it's heyday, managed to extort payments from computer manufacturers for copies of Windows that they didn't sell. e.g., if computer manufactures wanted to buy any copy of Windows, they had to buy copies for all the computers they sold - whether those computers came with Windows or not. *that's* evil.

Microsoft, when it could, adopted open standards and then quietly extended them - making them incompatible with any other OS. If you used Microsoft's spec for the standard, you'd find out when you wanted to port your program that the 'standard' was Windows-specific. *that's* evil.

The Apple page referenced by the article is a *Safari* demo. It's no surprise that it works only with Safari.

A.

It works in Safari... (-1, Flamebait)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475324)

It works in Safari because Apple have been readying Safari to work with HTML5 for some time. What have other browser vendors being doing to get their browsers ready? Nothing? Or more slowly? Well, who's to blame if it can't be viewed in other browsers? Not Apple, is it?

Re:It works in Safari... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475348)

Uh, yeah Apple considering you can't even access the demos with anything other than Safari. Repeat, you cannot even try them because it gives you a Download Safari popup. It won't let you in. So it's not that other browsers aren't HTML5 compatible (Chrome) it's that Apple won't even let you try.

Re:It works in Safari... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475386)

You know that Chrome is in fact basically a Safari with different, well, chrome. It's based on Apple WebKit engine.

But yeah, this demo was done pretty poorly, unfortunately. But that does not say much about HTML5, WebKit, or anything, just that this particular demo flopped.

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475490)

you do know that apple merely took existing code and "created" webkit from it right?

it was called khtml.

Re:It works in Safari... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475538)

As a very long time KDE user (but not recently) I do know that. I also do know that KHTML at that stage and WebKit are as different as codebase released by Netscape and what is now in Firefox. KHTML was a good solid base but 90% of work in WebKit was done by Apple. Actually, even now KHTML is barely usable. It doesn't even work properly with GMail (I believe. as I said I dropped out of Linux world a bit a year or two ago).

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475604)

KHTML was a good solid base but 90% of work in WebKit was done by Apple.

Please provide a citation.

Re:It works in Safari... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475630)

Yeah, like it's possible to do. But just think about it - WebKit was forked from KHTML is 1998. Were you using a web browser in 1998?

Re:It works in Safari... (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475750)

Yeah, like it's possible to do. But just think about it - WebKit was forked from KHTML is 1998. Were you using a web browser in 1998?

I was using Mosaic on Linux back when you had to have Motif and build it yourself.

It should be ENTIRELY possible to figure out where the code came from in WebKit. But keep in mind that it first started with KHTML and further has received significant contributions from a variety of sources [webkit.org] . Apple claims only to have done the "majority" of work since the fork. The WebKit Wiki in fact credits other developers for many major features.

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475754)

Actually, it works fine with GMail, but requires setting the user-agent.

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475578)

In the same way that Firefox was "created" from existing code.

It was called Netscape.

Re:It works in Safari... (2, Funny)

Dogun (7502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475608)

Which in turn was given to us by an Apple engineer with a time machine.

Take that, causality!

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

niks42 (768188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475360)

I would have some sympathy with your comment, if the Apple web page didn't pop up a box telling you to download Safari. (on this GNU/Linux machine, not something I am going to do).

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475382)

It's not that other browsers can't view HTML5, it's that Apple is sniffing for other browsers and not allowing them even try viewing it.

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475424)

If that was the issue, then it should have been included in the summary. As is, this sounds like just another version of http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ [chromeexperiments.com] , and some people are commenting that the website works with chrome. Does Chrome experiments allows IE9 now that it has the canvas tag native?

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

badpazzword (991691) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475534)

Durr...

"The fact that this page is only accessible using the Safari browser..."

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475672)

Dunno if it supports IE9, but Chrome Experiments does allow Firefox (well, IceWeasel if it matters), Opera and Midori just fine, not just Chrome. Meanwhile, all of the above give an "You'll need to download Safari to view this demo." message on Apple's HTML5 website, all with the default UA.

Re:It works in Safari... (3, Interesting)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475474)

If that were true you might have a point. But this is just Apple being the biggest company in IT. I checked the canvas pixel manipulation and the 360 deg demo on Linux x86_64 with firefox by faking a safari 4 user-agent string.
I'd say Microsoft 2.0 is quite to the point.

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475680)

By far Apple ain't biggest in IT, they are way smaller compared to some other companies. Say, HP, Dell, Microsoft, Nokia.

Re:It works in Safari... (1)

phatcabbage (986219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475640)

Yeah, yeah it is. Apple doesn't give you the option of trying to view it in another browser -- you are presented with a box saying "You'll need to download Safari to view this demo."

A very nice HTML5+CSS3 demo that actually works (5, Insightful)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475344)

Yeah, HTML5 is the future and as soon as we get rid of flash the better, but if you are going to try and show how its done, then do it right or don't do it at all, Apple.

Have a look at this: http://apirocks.com/html5/html5.html#slide1 [apirocks.com]

This is a very nice demo that doesn't tell you to get XYZ browser. Sure, some parts might not work at all if you are not running on the latest chrome or webkit browser, but most demos work and I find it to be a nicer way of doing things (IMHO).

(This was part of a presentation done by some googlers about HTML5 a few months ago)

Re:A very nice HTML5+CSS3 demo that actually works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475628)

Works fine on Opera, but whats impressive about it? It does not have a preloader nor transitions nor custom design. Flash can do the same since flash 5? You don't even need Flash IDE to do it.

HTML5 is not the future, it's a probable future, really really think if you'd like to support HTML5 when this show us that Apple have an agenda there, You think the web will be "more free (tm)" if Apple gets to decide what is a standard? Really?

Re:A very nice HTML5+CSS3 demo that actually works (2, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475726)

HTML5 will be great! It will just take about 5-10 years for all the other browsers to adopt the standards carefully laid out today.

hmmm... I wonder what the web will look like in 5-10 years?

A hard choice (4, Insightful)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475354)

HTML5 is still a work in progress. They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive. Or they could have made a demo that uses the latest bleeding-edge proposals for HTML5, and let it fail on most people's browsers - perhaps even worse.
Given that it's meant to be a showcase of things to come, it makes sense to require you to use the one browser that currently works with it. Even Mozilla sometimes releases demos that require the latest Firefox beta to test. Using browser sniffing to enforce it is certainly bad form, but they probably thought that otherwise people would just click through, see a broken demo, and not even realize they aren't seeing what they're meant to see. Hopefully they'll relax the restriction once (if) more browsers implement support for these proposed new features.

Re:A hard choice (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475392)

On Snow Leopard, the demos work on Chrome 5.0.375.55 (latest official version) - I didn't even get a pop-up. The demos don't run as well as on Safari but most of them do work.

Re:A hard choice (0, Offtopic)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475470)

Who modded this offtopic? I hope that was an error as this is most certainly to the point.

Re:A hard choice (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475720)

Who modded this offtopic? I hope that was an error as this is most certainly to the point.

I did...then because of your stupid comment, I had to VPN-in to work, open up a browser on a terminal server and reply to your stupid comment because if I replied on my original session, it would remove my offtopic mod point. Seriously.... you're asking "who modded this xxxx" and you expect an answer? No, because if someone answers who did the mod., the mod gets removed... learn how the moderation system works dumbass.
And no, my mod. was NOT an error... I have mod points and I get to assign them anyway that I want.
I dare you to respond to THIS anonymous post.

Re:A hard choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475472)

I would agree with you, except that other browsers support basically the same things that apple's does. Also, apple's code uses specific things to safari.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28HTML5%29

As you can see, all the browsers support about as much html5 as safari. The only exception to that would be internet explorer.

Re:A hard choice (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475496)

HTML5 is still a work in progress. They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive. Or they could have made a demo that uses the latest bleeding-edge proposals for HTML5, and let it fail on most people's browsers - perhaps even worse. Given that it's meant to be a showcase of things to come, it makes sense to require you to use the one browser that currently works with it. Even Mozilla sometimes releases demos that require the latest Firefox beta to test. Using browser sniffing to enforce it is certainly bad form, but they probably thought that otherwise people would just click through, see a broken demo, and not even realize they aren't seeing what they're meant to see. Hopefully they'll relax the restriction once (if) more browsers implement support for these proposed new features.

This person was not fairly modded. HTML5 is still a work in progress. However, if HTML5 is to be standard, it must be patent-unencumbered and free/open-source.

Re:A hard choice (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475582)

They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive. Or they could have made a demo that uses the latest bleeding-edge proposals for HTML5, and let it fail on most people's browsers - perhaps even worse.

The problem of using the "latest bleeding-edge proposals" is that there's no certainity that they'll be approved, so showcasing them to developers in hopes of getting them to use them is extremely irresponsible if not downright 'evil', as if the devs use them and the proposal falls through your browser would be the only one their websites works in without rewriting potentially substantial parts of it.

Re:A hard choice (1)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475740)

The problem of using the "latest bleeding-edge proposals" is that there's no certainity that they'll be approved, so showcasing them to developers in hopes of getting them to use them is extremely irresponsible if not downright 'evil', as if the devs use them and the proposal falls through your browser would be the only one their websites works in without rewriting potentially substantial parts of it.

That's a good point. Someone would have to look through the various features to see what their status is (draft, approved...). At any rate, it's true that this is a showcase of "what we would like HTML5 to be", rather than "what it is".
On the other hand, it's quite unlikely that people are going to start building websites that rely on those features, given Safari's small market share. What might happen is that web designers get interested and ask other browser makers to hurry up and add support for Apple's flashy stuff. You might say that's a bit underhanded, but it probably won't be a bad thing in the end.

Works on my iPad (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475586)

Apple has every reason to want this working on the iPad. The source code for the CSS, Javascript, and HTML looks standard to me, but I am not a professional web developer or software professional. I have seen IE source code that only worked on Windows, however, and the extra MS-Specific stuff was obvious. This code does not look like this. The comparison between Apple and Microsoft is suggestive but not entirely reasonable. Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer to differentiate its products with proprietary technology. And, unlike Microsoft, Apple does not require every PC-compatible machine to use its OS (if PC compatibility is desired).
There are good reasons to criticize Apple for its business practices (capricious APP rejection policies, for example), but it's a bit premature to cry wolf about this HTML5 demo. Think of Adobe's zero day warning yesterday before you slam Apple for at the least attempting to get to open standards. This is a technical forum. What, exactly, is non-standard in the demo code?

Re:A hard choice (5, Funny)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475636)

They should have made a demo in Flash so everyone could see it.

Re:A hard choice (3, Insightful)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475706)

that's not the point. The point is they advertise this as standards demo, not Safari demo. Ie. saying Safari is the only standards compliant browser, just like Microsoft telling IE is standards compliant.

Re:A hard choice (1)

doodlebumm (915920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475736)

Safari for Linux? Not likely. Apple's afraid to do that, or maybe just not competent enough to do it (which I doubt). Or maybe they are just too arrogant and self-centered.

Why does Apple want to make you download and install Safari?

Since they are already checking your browser to see the demo, why not have an alternative video file for each demo if your current browser doesn't support the individual demo? Why not try to show what their browser can do instead of making you install it in order to see what it can do. They could even put 1080 videos on Youtube (oops, that might allow someone to comment on the video).

What is Apple afraid of?

Re:A hard choice (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475738)

I'd agree that HTML5 is a work in progress, but I'd like to point out that as that's the case, sticking a honky great link to it on your company homepage is misplaced and stupid.

What Apple should've done is written something like Microsoft's IE9 HTML5 demos [microsoft.com] that actually work in multiple browsers, and maybe just linked to it from their developer portal. I suspect they've tried to be too clever and shot themselves in the foot in this little 'standards' skirmish...

Re:A hard choice (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475788)

HTML5 is still a work in progress. They could have made a demo that only uses those features which are already widely supported, but it wouldn't have been as impressive. Or they could have made a demo that uses the latest bleeding-edge proposals for HTML5, and let it fail on most people's browsers - perhaps even worse.

It's not the fact that the demos only work on Safari that is offensive here, it's the hypocrisy. Did you even RTFSummary?

on the front page the company states that 'Standards aren't add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today.' The latter statement falls short by the fact that the featured examples only work with the Safari browser,

In short, these are not standards yet, and since they are not standards, you can't start using them today. Or well, you can, but not as standards. So Apple is baldly lying. You can be offended by this or not, but you can't change the fact that Apple is lying.

Apple's just pushing existing standards (5, Insightful)

Oceanplexian (807998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475356)

Apple tends to take standards that are in their infancy, and make them mainstream.

I don't see anything wrong with this, other than it making other browsers like FF3 look like they haven't been innovating.

Re:Apple's just pushing existing standards (0, Troll)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475718)

Opps you badmouthed Apple. I can foresee my future karma hell for the mere reason of talking straight about Apple.. as if I care.

I got to /. so I can learn about open source, is this forum turned out to be a chapel for Apple? Everyday I see more articles about Apple than about open source. Anyone knows a good site free of stupid fanboyism where I can learn and get news about open source world?

Oh oh oh and don't forget the /. ghost! he will DELETE your post when moderation is not effective in hiding what you say.

In distopian slashdot the memo better gets you.

some works in firefox with user agent switcher (2, Informative)

modestgeek (1449921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475396)

Some of this (about a third) worked for me in Firefox with the user agent switcher add on. The default user agent switcher doesn't include safari but you can import them from the following URL. http://techpatterns.com/forums/about304.html [techpatterns.com]

Re:some works in firefox with user agent switcher (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475452)

Yeah but not fully, when viewing a video example under WebKit nightly I got a perspective switch that was not event present in Safari 4.

I really recommend downloading Safari 4 or even WebKit nightly (sorry Chrome users, no transform3D for you) and trying those demos, it is pretty neat, something to get really exited about.

Oh, and as for the QuickTime thing on windows machines, Safari uses it to handle html5 media playback, same as iTunes uses it for its media.

In Wine? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475576)

I really recommend downloading Safari 4 or even WebKit nightly

Does Safari 4 work in Wine?

Re:In Wine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475690)

It appears to pretty well... though this isn't a clean install. Running an upgraded Ubuntu 10.04, and have used winetricks in the past: http://wiki.winehq.org/winetricks

Re:some works in firefox with user agent switcher (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475774)

WOW how innovative! I need to use X browser to access some web features and the sibling media player to access media! I hope someone tell Microsoft, they're going to miss the future boat /sarcasm

Selling mine (0, Flamebait)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475416)

I've never thought much of apple, but my one purchase (an ipod touch), was a mistake. I hate the DRM, the control over my asset, etc. I'll be selling it soon, going to a droid.

Re:Selling mine (3, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475590)

What DRM? Do you have movies on it from the iTunes store?

Re:Selling mine (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475644)

What DRM? How about the inability to manage the device from ANY computer using ANY tool of one's choosing and avoiding iTunes.

This is really handy when iTunes decides to stop working on your XP configuration (like the latest version of iTunes does).

Re:Selling mine (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475728)

iTunes is the DRM.

Testing in Firefox (1)

MalHavoc (590724) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475432)

If you'd like to see how well it works in firefox, you can override the about:config setting for the useragent. I changed the general.useragent.override string to

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.22.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7

And I was able to view the tests without the message about requiring Safari. That message appears to get stuck in a cookie so you you might need to reload the base apple.com/html5 page before trying again.

User agent switcher helps a bit (1)

CdXiminez (807199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475434)

User agent switcher turns some things on in Firefox.

http://chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/ [chrispederick.com]

with following settings:

Safari
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; ja-jp)
Mozilla
Safari
4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7
MacIntel
[empty]
[empty]

A lot is broken though.

Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475436)

1) Select the Typography demo
2) Select "Pincoya Black fonts"
3) Enter a couple of lines of lower case "o" (they are underlined)
4) Rotate slowly so you see the step by step motion

What you'll see: spacing between each "o" varies at each rotation step, and you can see "steps" in the underlining. That wouldn't happen with flash.

Basically while the fonts are anti-aliased, the position of each letter is computed as an integer. In flash, every coordinate is computed in floating point.

Welcome back to pixel world.

Re:Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475646)

I'm pretty sure I'm never, ever, going to be asked to do that in the real world.

Re:Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475710)

What browser are you using? It seems fine in Chrome.

Re:Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475748)

I just tested with Safari on Tiger and I see the problem, the "o" are slightly jumping around, easier to see with black fonts.

Re:Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475742)

What you'll see: spacing between each "o" varies at each rotation step, and you can see "steps" in the underlining. That wouldn't happen with flash.

It wouldn't happen with SVG either. Which, I might add, is supported by every modern browser and will be supported even by IE in the next version.

Basically while the fonts are anti-aliased, the position of each letter is computed as an integer. In flash, every coordinate is computed in floating point.

Shouldn't you simply turn the whole thing to bezier curves, and then apply a rotation matrix? This sounds more like a rendering bug than anything else.

Re:Shows why HTML5 is not ready to replace flash (3, Informative)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475752)

Flash uses pixels just like everything else too.

The thing is, Safari hasn't implemented sub-pixel calculations yet, thus you get that "jerkyness". That "pixel world" you meantion really means lack of sub-pixel calculation and only means lackluster implementation.

Its Apple (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475500)

Once again Slashdot jumps to conclusions. The showcase is to promote Safari not web standards. The way the write up reads is that these are the web standards, and these are what they can do. Its blatant in the second paragraph, "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." that they are promoting Safari and not web standards. This our toy and this is why it works better then yours is the message. Its Apple. If Apple were not so full of themselves all the time I'd think they were not following their mission statement. Showing me web standards that no one has implemented yet and only works on your browser is akin to giving me a 100 GHz processor writing a really graphics heavy OS (that only you sell), and has no application base, when the rest of the world has Windows 3.1.

http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475546)

Its odd that the examples at http://www.apple.com/html5/ browser sniff..

Whereas the same examples at http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ work fine in other browsers.

Re:http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/ (3, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475714)

Not that odd, really. Developers want to bang on things until they break. End users just want things to work. Ergo, the dev site lets you try the demos in any browser, while the end user site makes sure you have a browser that supports the demos 100%.

Why this is a story I have no idea. Mozilla, Google, and the WebKit team have been adding non-standard features and making tech demos that only work on specific versions of their own browser for years, but no one thinks they're trying to fragment the industry. Apple puts a browser detect on a page to ensure an end user demo works without a hiccup and geeks everywhere are up in arms. Go figure.

Would you like some cheese with your whine? (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475596)

Would it help if they added the word "beta" to the title, like all those other sites on the web that don't want people complaining that not everything works yet the way it is supposed to?

Not apple's failing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475622)

All you dumbasses just don't get it. These demos are showing what the HTML 5 standard can do. The fact that other browsers aren't there yet has nothing to do with Apple !

Apple's the next microsoft (2, Insightful)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475642)

Not the popular opinion, but think about it. M$ started out the same way.
- Get people hooked on the new-exciting-and-different (windows 3.1)
- you were a Luddite if you weren't adopting it
- People that new almost *nothing* about computers could "use" a computer

After the customer base was established, Microsoft Works came in and locked everyone into a proprietary format (they didn't know better). This was followed by Excel, Word and Access, and then Exchange.

Apple is taking the same road and once again people who don't know they don't know, don't know.

Re:Apple's the next microsoft (1)

noncaptusest (1644871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475758)

Well, not all people, if not most, have CS degrees. A large percentage of those people do not even care. A decent portion of those people are customers of Apple. Do you want to get them involved in terminology, alpha, beta or RC stages of development or just give them something that works for them. My guess i tshe last one.

So ye, maybe this is quite fishy on Apple's part for all the "rest" of us considering their declaration not long ago, e.g. Flash bashing by Jobs etc.. However, instead of bashing Apple we should get people thinking about things; even if it is kind of hard at the beginning.

Re:Apple's the next microsoft (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475772)

Yeah, except that Apple's not locking anyone into any proprietary formats. HTML5, seriously? It's not proprietary. It's still in development, and not widely supported, but not proprietary.

MS have some generic HTML5 demos here... (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475662)

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Default.html [microsoft.com]

No user agent checking, and they work (or don't work in the case of older IE versions) in different browsers...

The way I see it, it's just Apple using their current 'standards' press coverage to increase browser share among the general populace. Microsoft 2.0 indeed.

Use Epiphany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32475756)

That masquerades as Safari.

How dare Apple advertise their own products! (4, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32475766)

Shock! horror! Apple are using their own website to push Safari and claim that their own browsers are ahead of the game on standards support? The bastards!!!

In large friendly letters on the page in question (my emphasis):

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. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.

Note how that doesn't say "Here's a handy resource to allow you to objectively compare different browsers' HTML 5 implementations"? That is because you are looking at an advert [wikipedia.org] for Safari! As is traditional in these "adverts" it is trying to get you to download and try Safari, not find out how close the competition comes. In other news, if you go to a Mercedes dealership they're not going to offer you test drives in a BMW...

Wake me up if anybody smart enough to spoof their browser ID finds out whether Apple's demos use undocumented or non-standard features (rather than ones which don't work in Firefox, yet).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?