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!

Firefox 4 Web Demos: Web O' Wonder

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the glad-the-browser-wars-continue dept.

Firefox 145

An anonymous reader writes "Similarly to Google with Chrome Experiments and Microsoft with Internet Explorer Test Drive, Mozilla has developed an HTML5 demo site to showcase the latest features supported by Firefox 4. Mozilla's Paul Roget writes, 'Firefox 4 is almost here, and comes with a huge list of awesome features for web developers. In order to illustrate all these new technical features, we put together several Web demos. You'll see a couple of demos released every week until the final version of Firefox 4. You can see the first 3 demos online now on our brand new demo web site: Web O' Wonder. Unlike certain other HTML5 demo sites, Mozilla's site works in any browser that supports the features used in the demo."

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

slashdotted (-1, Offtopic)

alexborges (313924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375174)

bad bad hits on the web-o-wonders.... its down baby.

Re:slashdotted (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375214)

I'm using it right now, and so far the demos are working in my daily from the PPA...

Re:slashdotted (1)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375582)

bad bad hits on the web-o-wonders.... its down baby.

It's working fine for me. It doesn't seem to be slashdotted.

Re:slashdotted (1)

subk (551165) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375774)

It's working fine for me. It doesn't seem to be slashdotted.

It's been years since I've seen a site truly slashdotted.

Re:slashdotted (1)

rockfistus (1445481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375946)

yeah daddio, i dig.

shitty website (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375270)

slow, clunky and doesn't work in my browser*

* what the average user might say

Re:shitty website (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375304)

OTOH the websites make it pretty clear that you should download their browser ...

Re:shitty website (1)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375994)

You know, it pisses me off that these sites make snarky "Download an up to date browser" comments. I mean, if I was running IE 6 or FF2 or some shit, yeah, but when I'm using the latest, bleeding edge of another browser I basically get told I'm using a piece of crap? I mean come on, this elitist asshole shit has to stop, especially on a site that claims to be open to all to try. Why not word it:"currently only browser X and Y has these features" and leave it at that?

Sorry, but it rubbed me the wrong way.

Re:shitty website (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376114)

Google's HTML5 demo site (from last summer) was no different. I tried multiple browsers, even Chrome, and it still kept telling me to upgrade.

Re:shitty website (0, Flamebait)

Anne Honime (828246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376252)

when I'm using the latest, bleeding edge of another browser I basically get told I'm using a piece of crap?

If you're thinking about the one I'm thinking, the answer is definitely YES, It's an old fashioned steamy pile of shit, face it and be a man about it. Wishful thinking and head burying in the sand won't change this. Neither will shouting while pounding with your little pink fists on your keyboard like a baby being weaned.

Re:shitty website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35377964)

I'm also useing the latest version of Netscape and the website doesn't even render properly.

What an experience! (1, Flamebait)

Provos (20410) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375272)

I clicked on the link to the Web O' Wonder in Firefox 4 beta 12 on fedora 14... it crashed immediately.

Are they attempting to say that Firefox 4 hearkens back to memories of windows 98?

Re:What an experience! (3, Informative)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375820)

Please turn on the crash reporter and repro!!

Re:What an experience! (1, Troll)

gullevek (174152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376406)

Well, Linux, what do you expect? Working experience? Worked all very well here with FF4 Beta 12 in OS X.

Re:What an experience! (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377710)

Hmm, works fine for me in Kubuntu with the Firefox4.0 daily build.

And a very nice demo it is!

Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375294)

Looks a lot like a flash site.
:-(

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (2)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375310)

That good then?

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375484)

Looks a lot like a flash site. :-(

That good then?

Hard to say, if only someone could invent simple figurative expressions to go with the text we might know the writer's feeling on the subject. That's way too complicated to ever happen though.

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (1)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376108)

I hate the idea of a "~" sarcasm mark as much as the next guy, but it seems that the post you were being sarcastic to might have benefitted from one to point out that it too was being funny.

"It was that bad then?" as opposed to "Is that bad then?"

However, I'm merely being pedantic; your interpretation may have been the one the author was attempting to convey.

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376124)

No I hate flash sites. So damn slow and baroque (gaudy). Like IMDb.com, although they have improved some.

Also works on Opera 11

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (2)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377106)

Well Flash has all the features of HTML5 and more AND it plays the same in every browser as long as you have a plugin ... and you still hate it ... Face it everyone; HTML5 is fixing problems that shouldn't have existed 10 years ago - and it is doing it so poorly and vaguely not even browser makers know what's going on. Divs, positioning, layering, browser specific CSS, tables inside tables inside tables, endless debugging and cross checking. Web design is a disgusting mess and the standards are so vague that nobody knows how to actually implement anything properly. On the other hand I've seen designers build gorgeous Flash sites with animation and effects and video and audio in just a few hours - the same would be nearly impossible in HTML5, would take significantly more development time, and wouldn't display the same in any browser or even different versions of the same browser.

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377516)

Actually, HTML5 is trying to fix a lot of those problems.

For example, it has a complete specification how to parse valid and invalid HTML.

Re:Works on Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.1 (beta) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376738)

Turn off style, enjoy the advantages of HTML.

Say what? (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375332)

"Unlike certain other HTML5 demo sites, Mozilla's site works in any browser that supports the features used in the demo."

What is that about? The "other demo site" also worked in any browser that supported the features used int the demo. Same difference.

Re:Say what? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375382)

Oh really?

http://www.apple.com/html5/ [apple.com]

I get an error for all of them saying I need to download Safari to view them.

Re:Say what? (0)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375502)

Maybe because Safari is the only browser that supports the -webkit-* features in that demo? Just because Mozilla is presenting the features in a more browser agnostic way does not mean that the "other demo site" has invalid claims to its features.

Re:Say what? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375540)

If that was the case, they wouldn't need to check the user-agent string and block it outright and would just let you try to load it ?

If you spoof the browser string it'll run. Almost all of it runs on Chrome (which uses webkit) I'm told, haven't tried it myself.

The invalid claim is simply that in order to support an open web, we've created these demos, but you can't see them unless you using this propriatry technology. And you have to use it because we make checks for it.

Re:Say what? (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375662)

The open web specifically allows the use of CSS prefixes and user string matching. Damn you open web!

Re:Say what? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375794)

So what? the GP's point that it doesn't let just any browser that supports its features see it still stands.

Just admit you were wrong and stop this charade, alright?

Re:Say what? (2)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376304)

Chrome uses Webkit. The site doesn't look for Webkit---it looks specifically for Safari.

Re:Say what? (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376290)

Yeah, it doesn't even say to get n up-to-date browser. It comes right out and says you need Safari or you can't even click through to see the demo.

Re:Say what? (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376622)

Thats odd. I have to problem viewing those demos with the latest version of Chromium

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375442)

What is that about? The "other demo site" also worked in any browser that supported the features used int the demo.

Read the article linked to in the sentence. That will tell you what it's all about.

Blink (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375340)

Blink

Marquee (1)

syockit (1480393) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377372)

Marquee!

My favorite is the giant red address bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375346)

My favorite bit about the site has to be the giant red address bar and the warning by my browser NOT to use the site, because they managed (somehow) to screw up their SSL settings.

But I guess fancy Flash-like crap beats out minor things like doing SSL correctly.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Firefox 4 Beta erroneously suppresses the error. Maybe they should try testing this in other browsers. Seems something like not fucking up SSL would be more important than Flashy demos.

Re:My favorite is the giant red address bar (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375934)

They "did" SSL correctly. They just didn't encrypt all images, which makes sense in this case (in fact, using SSL at all is overkill for this page).

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Firefox 4 Beta erroneously suppresses the error.

Uh, no. They treat it like a non-encrypted page, the same that Chrome and Opera do, and it's correct since the certificate is valid - so there's no suspicion of MITM - you simply can't rely on the HTTPS since some of the elements use HTTP.

Browsers treating this kind of pages as "potential threats" is bad, because it forces people to drop all SSL if they can't protect every single element of the page, when in reality they are not any less secure than an non-SSL page.

Re:My favorite is the giant red address bar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376010)

so there's no suspicion of MITM

Wow. You have no idea how MITM works, do you?

You simply cannot trust a page with a mix of encrypted and unencrypted elements, because the unencrypted elements can be subject to MITM attacks. Now you might be thinking "well that's silly, images don't need to be encrypted" but you'd be wrong. If I can substitute my own images, I can potentially make the page look like anything I want. Without that protection, the encryption is worthless.

Which is probably why Chrome in fact does flag the page broken, and I'd hope Opera does too.

Firefox 4, on the other hand, just happily goes on like nothing's wrong...

Re:My favorite is the giant red address bar (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376144)

suspicion != possibility.

Yes, it's possible the page is being MITM, but there's no reason to assume that. A broken certificate, on the other hand, is a reason to be suspicious.

Which is probably why Chrome in fact does flag the page broken, and I'd hope Opera does too.

Firefox 4, on the other hand, just happily goes on like nothing's wrong...

Firefox does not treat the page as safe. It treats the page as unencrypted, which is the right thing to do.

If you go to https://paypal.com/ [paypal.com] you'll see that the URL bar has a green zone with Paypal's logo. Yet, in the Web O' Wonder there's no such green zone.
So yes, Firefox 4 does recognize that the page isn't safe.

What Firefox 4 does not do is stupidly treat it as less safe than any completely unencrypted page, because it's not.

Re:My favorite is the giant red address bar (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377868)

Opera treats this as an "insecure" page but doesn't warn you. It just doesn't show it as "secure" (with yellow, green or anything else for the padlock icon).

It is, in effect, an "insecure" page because of that a single missing SSL element, which is correct, but not worth shouting about because you should be checking for the padlock before you eve TYPE anything sensitive in. And it's a completely worthless site to have SSL on, except to bump up the system requirements.

o.o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375358)

Works just fine for me. FF4.0b12 (Win7 x64)

Ironic (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375364)

Was quite enjoying the experience, then it crashed my firefox 4. Go figure.

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375710)

What part of "Firefox 4 Beta" you did not understand? I suspect it was beta. Do you know what that mean?

Re:Ironic (1)

nickd (58841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376790)

At least you got that far, in chrome on the mac it completely hard locked my machine. And again after a fresh restart. HTML5 demos, now fucking your machine harder than flash.

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35377666)

Just buggers up from the outset in Firefox 3.6 and whilst I wouldn't expect it to work it's nice to see that one of the firms involved in setting the standard and / or the standard itself aren't capable of ensuring some form of graceful degradation, and of course, accessibility is right out the window.

Just seems to confirm my view that HTML5 is a step back to the 90s in terms of quality of web development.

Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (1)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375378)

What's the status of Web Sockets in Firefox 4?

I heard that there were concerns about whether the technology was mature enough, but it sounds like a very important web tech so I really hope it makes it.

If it doesn't get into Firefox 4 that takes all pressure off of MS to include it, and it will probably be years before it gets widely deployed.

Re:Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375456)

There are security concerns with the rev-76 standard. It's disabled, but it can be re-enabled in about:config network.websocket.override-security-block.

Re:Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (1)

fenix849 (1009013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375468)

WebSockets is currently supported in Firefox 4 and Opera, but disabled by default in both.

Re:Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375904)

...because the specification has a significant security hole, IIUC

Re:Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (2, Informative)

Aikar (1158019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376226)

No, it does not. Some inexperienced "security researcher" posted an invalid PDF document placing the fault on WebSockets for a vulnerability in other software. And some Mozilla exec blindly skimmed the document and accepted it as fact and had websockets disabled. But in reality, there fault has absolutely nothing to do with WebSockets, and the fault CAN NOT be fixed in WebSockets. Mozillas suggestion to the problem simply removes the ability to use WebSockets as a vector for the attack, but the attack is still doable by every language on the internet that can create a TCP connection. In other words the exploit is doable on Flash or Java. WebSockets need to be re-enabled ASAP and Mozilla needs to apologize for blindly accepting a document without verifying its credibility. It seriously took me 15 minutes to read the document in full and fully understand the underlying vulnerability and realize it has absolutely nothing to do with WebSockets. Its sad an exec spent less time than that and set their browser back a few years on false grounds. Note: Google was smart and has not disabled WebSockets, maybe cause they RTFD

Re:Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (2)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377544)

Do other software is:
Transparant caching proxies that do not properly implement HTTP.

Websites can silently inject fake data in the cache of such a proxy.

The reason for it being disabled is because Mozilla and atleast Opera wants to implement a version of the protocol which can not be abused this way.

Re:Web Sockets in Firefox 4 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375650)

Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (4, Informative)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375394)

And why HTML, XHTML, XML, MIME is such a clusterfuck ...

http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html [diveintohtml5.org]

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (1, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375584)

That has a really weird font though, like a badly scanned book from 1910.

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375740)

I use the PlainClothes extension for Google Chrome and didn't realise that until you mentioned it. The fonts are truly hideous.

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (2)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376018)

Not having the same font as every website since 1990 is kind of the point...

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (1)

Wizel603 (1367631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377396)

Would you prefer comic sans perhaps?

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375624)

Here's a good read on why the web sucks:

http://nothings.org/writing/websucks.html [nothings.org]

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375726)

Hey, do you know you can just leave out all the fancy stuff and only view the real content ? It is all interpreted you know and you can make the browser interpreted it as you like. You can make a lot of stuff just disappear.

For example with this addon:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/readability/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375746)

Here's a good read on why the Internet is shit:

http://www.internetisshit.org/ [internetisshit.org]

Re:Interesting link on the history of HTML5 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376062)

I bet that was written from his lawn.

The internet, like anything else, is subject to Sturgeon's Law. Starting over won't change this.

Firefox 4 is surely coming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375504)

http://imgur.com/5glAx

Missing the point? (1)

darnkitten (1533263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375614)

Unfortunately, from a standpoint of marketing to those who have not tried Firefox 4Beta, it doesn't work with Firefox 3.6.

Re:Missing the point? (2)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375868)

Let me get this straight.

You want a website which showcases new features in firefox 4 to work with firefox 3.6?

What would we be the point of THAT?

Re:Missing the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35377602)

I don't know multipart/mixed, perhaps to convince people to upgrade?

Wrong audience (1, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375680)

"Firefox 4 is almost here, and comes with a huge list of awesome features for web developers."

How about fewer features for web developers - and more for web users? Remember us? They guys who are the reason for all those web developers?

Re:Wrong audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375744)

What do you mean exactly by features for web users? That's what most web developers get paid for. Firefox is just a platform.

Re:Wrong audience (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35375772)

Those that get new features in every single release, you mean?

Seriously, if Firefox had stagnated like IE6 did for so many years I'd understand your concern, but as it stands...

Re:Wrong audience (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376086)

addons.mozilla.org and userscripts.org has a nice selection for such features.

Firefox is the base on which webpages and addons run.

Re:Wrong audience (2)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376128)

You mean all those features that Firefox set out to remove from SeaMonkey because it was too bloody bloated and develop a nice fast browser that just browsed and let you add your own bloatware to after they had made it good at what it did?

Wow, it's like people forget what Phoenix was forked for ...

Just stop adding crap to Firefox and tighten up the code, remove the bugs and have the rendering engine improve to keep pace with new developments in HTML (non)standards.
Or you could put an HTML editor, IRC and mail client in there and see how many people didn't know they actually wanted Netscape Navigator and accidentally downloaded Firefox lol

Re:Wrong audience (2)

Aikar (1158019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376248)

... the new features for DEVELOPERS are so we developers can give more features to you USERS... You get better stuff when we get the features instead of you.

Re:Wrong audience (1)

Aikar (1158019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376256)

You wouldn't want to get a new browser that still runs the same old kind of websites would you?

Re:Wrong audience (2)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377906)

As a web developer, I can turn any one of the features for me into useful features for users.

Graceful degradation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35375802)

Until most people are using HTML5 compliant browsers, web site designers still need to support the older browsers. Is there any comprehensive coverage of this out there? There are plenty of good sources covering of graceful degradation where browsers don't support JavaScript (or block it). I'm interested in analogous material for HTML5.

- T

Re:Graceful degradation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376276)

Which browsers are those? Lynx? IE8? Yeah, something to be concerned about.

about:mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376222)

about:mozilla [about]

Advertisers/Spammers will love Firefox 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376410)

According to the "Remixing Reality" demo, animated content can jump out of it's containing frame (watch the basketball). I could only watch the video of it, so I can say for certain this is true, but it certainly looks like it.

Re:Advertisers/Spammers will love Firefox 4 (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377560)

Only difference is, the user can make the browser display the content in anyway they want it displayed.

For example, like this:
https://www.readability.com/ [readability.com]

completely freezes on dev channel chrome/osx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376416)

I've tried to view the site 3 times on 2 different computers, and each time it has made the computer stop responding; no kernel panic or anything but i've needed to restart them. pretty shitty bug in chrome right there

Re:completely freezes on dev channel chrome/osx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35377130)

Chrome devs are frantically trying to get GPU acceleration for Chrome so they can stay relevant (despite Chrome's multi-process design making this more difficult), but finding out that graphics drivers have tons of bugs and ways to crash the system. Chrome doesn't have a huge testing infrastructure built up over years like IE and Firefox do, so expect a lot of system crashes like this.

nice engine, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376452)

Firefox 4 is atrocious to look at and use; if only they'd take the engine improvements and put them in a GUI that doesn't suck.

Re:nice engine, but (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377564)

You can make Firefox 4 look like Firefox 3 if that is what you want.

How about an actual feature that is missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376498)

An actual feature that every other major browser has.

Full text history search.

Every 10 or so tabs closed I would suddenly remember an important word I saw but I don't know where. It has become second nature to me to quickly do a Ctrl+H and search in opera. Google chrome (being google) also does this wonderfully. And the rest, they just leave it either to extensions or third-party program like spotlight or windows search. Yes I could be using a third party program, I could also use another browser that does the job neatly and succinctly displays the results in a handy sidebar.

While at that, it's probably a good idea turn something like the Find in All Tabs add-on a default feature. This applies to every browser. If there is one thing I love, it is the ability to search and filter. A file manager that can't quickly filter names in a directory (and forces me to use 'search') is as good as useless to me.

Is their URL bar faster? (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376720)

Otherwise I don't give a crap about stuff that will make life easier for the people who create mostly lame websites. The URL bar is slow as an evil year and would be wonderful if it was fast. But it isn't.

Here's my HTML5 demo. Online photo/image editor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376742)

http://www.imagebot.com/

try drag and drop from desktop.
import image.
Add stickers/line/pen/rectangle/ellipse/etc...

Easy Logo creation (click logo button and click on canvas)

Cameron

Re:Here's my HTML5 demo. Online photo/image editor (1)

gpuk (712102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377940)

That is very very cool!

Does it support this ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35376806)

Can you CTRL+TAB away from a PDF document yet? No? Much progress has been made in browser utility and capability I see.

Re:Does it support this ... (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377162)

I think this functionality has to be implemented in the plugin itself first, but yes, this missing feature has been aggravating me for ~10 years as well.

Re:Does it support this ... (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377582)

Then disable the damn PDF-plugin, problem solved (if you ask me).

It is safer too, because it won't automatically load the PDF in Acrobat/whatever.

Acrobat has many, many issues and will never be fixed. Even Adobe does not know how to even make a specification which is not ambiguous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XYqsf4JEY [youtube.com]

just.. (1)

maeda (1967878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35376996)

release that delayed.delayed thing already, the chrome mind block function will wear out soon..

WebGL performance/conformance (2)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377060)

I ran 1-2 tests from the demos.mozilla.org site and they did not seem to work as intended (especially the Remixing Reality one). My guess was that maybe WebGL was not working properly on my system and I ran the webgl-conformance-tests suite found at https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/sdk/tests/webgl-conformance-tests.html [khronos.org] . Results were 5389 of 5468 tests passed, 1 timed out. Same results with latest Minefield.

Now I'm a bit at loss: the above tests (the failure of which may or may not be related to the demo pages) may fail because of several reasons:

1. The WebGL implementation by FF4
2. The Javascript and Java implementation on my system
3. The OpenGL implementation (latest AMD Catalyst on HD4670)
4. The specific tests, or FF4, or WebGL, or OpenGL may be not fully amd64 compatible (running Win7 Pro x64)
5. Other OS and non-OS related issues.
6. A combination of the above

I'm not a 3D guru, but my guess is that a lot of people eager to experience the latest and greatest HTML5 bling won't know where to start troubleshooting. I wish Mozilla realises the problem and posts in that demo page:

a. specific prerequisites list (hardware, OS, programs, drivers, accessories etc) for properly running the demos
b. testing procedures to check if the above prerequisites are met
c. troubleshooting instructions (which may be based on a. & b. above).

I hope some of the above are implemented as soon as (or better, before) FF4 final is released. Otherwise I expect vicious browser/platform wars that won't do HTML5 development any good.

Re:WebGL performance/conformance (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377612)

WebGL is probably the hardest part to get right of all the specifications, because it so depends very much on other parts of the system.

The page was mostly for developers and knowledgable users I would guess.

But luckily WebGL is only a very small part of all the new stuff. IE9 will not support it, so that might be a reason people won't be using it much.

The specification has been made and people are doing testing because if you don't do that, the problems will not be found and fixed and it will never advance.

That doesn't mean that in a few years all platforms, systems, drivers you 'buy' in the shop can not support it and we can all start using it and maybe even Microsoft will release IE10 with support for it.

Too few baby jesuses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35377152)

Need to add more baby jesuses, preferably dancing.

Crazy Flash-like shit is not content (2)

dirkdodgers (1642627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377184)

Look, look with your special eyes:
https://demos.mozilla.org/en-US/#dashboard [mozilla.org]

I don't know what to do here. I don't even know what I'm looking at here. I move the mouse around the screen and things glow and whir and slide, but none of it makes any sense to my mind. HTML 5 apparently means "Hey now I can do that crazy shit I used to do with Flash, right in my HTML."

Yeah, and now instead of that crazy Flash shit being isolated to a little box of your page that I could disable, now your entire page is rendered a confusing mess of utter unusability to anyone over the age of 30.

When will web site designers learn that people don't come to their websites for their crazy Flash shit or really anything they do. They come to their web site for their CONTENT. Content doesn't mean what your web site designer does. Content means what's between the covers of a book. Content means a video. Content means user discussion boards.

Great technical browser implementation, guys. You're doing good work, but this crazy Flash-like shit shouldn't be the poster child for your work.

Re:Crazy Flash-like shit is not content (2)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377634)

Web site designers usually are users too and fully agree with you. But marketing seems to keep asking for it and I guess some people comply because they want to keep their job.

I think it is the job of browser vendors to make it easier for the user to remove/disable certain style types/elements so all that is left is the real content.

Like so:
https://www.readability.com/ [readability.com]

I think Safari implements something like that as well ?

Worry (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377656)

The following does make me worry:

we dynamically set the cache size based on how much space is free on an end-user’s hard drive.

I hope they also check the quota. Not everyone is sitting at a single-user system, after all.

Re:Worry (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377830)

The vast majority of users who's hard drive free space is going to be used up by the browsers cache should have cleaned out their disk long ago.

In this third millennium it's a non issue.

One thing I don't understand (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35377728)

On the website there is a showcase of the HTML5 capabilities of rendering 3D graphics in the browser. But, hey, I remember for sure that browsers had this ability in the nineties and already then nobody cared about it.

Another thing I don't understand is why there is a constant need for new standards...HTML3, XHTML, CSS, HTML4, HTML5, etc. etc. Why? To keep committees busy? To piss of browser and web developers? To make sure that overlay ads can be displayed in any browser?

I understand the benefits of XHTML over HTML. However, wouldn't it be wise at some point to just freeze the features and perhaps focus on the content instead?

If this trend of turning my browser into a slow, clunky meta operating system continues, I will revenge myself by writing my own proprietary, slick binary web protocol, implement my own browser, and distribute it among friends. And others will likely do that, too. Goodbye HTML!

You have been warned! ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?